Help with Networking

[Segleo]

Okay, so I run a small business and we use a couple of network based programs that run off a server. Recently I upgraded the server, which now has 2 SSDs in RAID 1 for the programs and 1 SSD for the OS. However, since the network is a little unstable due to an old switch I'm planning to upgrade to a new 16 Port Cisco SG100.

 

Inspired by one Linus' videos on the servers they use, I thought that I could also get an Intel Gigabit PT Dual Port network card and I could connect both ports on the Cisco switch. The problem is that I don't know whether that would make a difference or not. The SSDs in RAID reach up to 1GB/s Reads and up to 6 computers can be accessing the server at once. 

[Robert.pvf]

Well one Gig network port has a maximum throughput of 100 MB/s which is 1/10 your drive max throughput. So it would help to aggregate two Gig ports coming into your server to give more bandwidth. Also remember if your clients have all 1 Gig NICs then they won't be requesting anything more than 100 MB/s themselves. And if your clients are wireless then they would use even less.

[Robert.pvf]

12 minutes ago, Segleo said:

However, since the network is a little unstable due to an old switch I'm planning to upgrade to a new 16 Port Cisco SG100

Also, if you are planning on aggregating those two ports together you would have to make sure the NIC and the switch both support than feature otherwise you'd have to give each NIC port a different IP and instruct half of your clients to use one and the other half the other. 

[Segleo]

All clients access the server using Ethernet. So that means that if I can get a 4 Port NIC, that would be even better, right? And thanks for the advice.

[Robert.pvf]

1 minute ago, Segleo said:

All clients access the server using Ethernet. So that means that if I can get a 4 Port NIC, that would be even better, right? 

If they access it simultaneously all the time then yes. However, if your clients are just randomly moving files back and forth and some of then not at all for periods then it may be overkill. What is the purpose for the file server for the clients?

[Segleo]

Just now, Robert.pvf said:

If they access it simultaneously all the time then yes. However, if your clients are just randomly moving files back and forth and some of then not at all for periods then it may be overkill. What is the purpose for the file server for the clients?

For now, at least 3 clients are constantly accessing files and the other 3 access it periodically. There is a specific program running on the server, which is not very demanding. However, its 30GB database is accessed by the clients which run an instance of the program each directly off the server. When the switch is replaced, I'm planning to use more similar programs that will require big file transfers really quickly. 

[Robert.pvf]

You would probably be able to get away with just two aggregated Gig links to the server for what you have currently. However, if you are planning to do more later then, if you can afford it, I would get a good 4 port NIC that supports aggregation. I'm pretty sure that switch you listed above does not support aggregation so you would have to look into something managed with that feature. 

[beavo451]

15 minutes ago, Segleo said:

All clients access the server using Ethernet. So that means that if I can get a 4 Port NIC, that would be even better, right? And thanks for the advice.

Depending on your budget. 4 port NICs are fairly cheap. The OS and the switch both have to support link aggregation (BTW your chosen switch does not).

[Segleo]

Just now, Robert.pvf said:

You would probably be able to get away with just two aggregated Gig links to the server for what you have currently. However, if you are planning to do more later then, if you can afford it, I would get a good 4 port NIC that supports aggregation. I'm pretty sure that switch you listed above does not support aggregation so you would have to look into something managed with that feature. 

 

Just now, beavo451 said:

Depending on your budget. 4 port NICs are fairly cheap. The OS and the switch both have to support link aggregation (BTW your chosen switch does not).

Thanks for saving me, I'd be pretty angry if I had bought these parts and they wouldn't work. Could you suggest a switch, a 2 and a 4 Port NIC that support link aggregation? 

[Robert.pvf]

9 minutes ago, Segleo said:

Could you suggest a switch, a 2 and a 4 Port NIC that support link aggregation?

Although I've never used the aggregation feature on these switches before I recommend you try a Netgear model:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122596

 

Keep in mind you can't go less than 16 ports with Netgear otherwise the aggregation feature goes away. And it must be of their managed line. 

 

I've personally never bought a 4 port NIC so hopefully other people can chip in on that. All I can tell you is look at reviews and google. 

[Segleo]

Just now, Robert.pvf said:

Although I've never used the aggregation feature on these switches before I recommend you try a Netgear model:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122596

 

Keep in mind you can't go less than 16 ports with Netgear otherwise the aggregation feature goes away. And it must be of their managed line. 

 

I've personally never bought a 4 port NIC so hopefully other people can chip in on that. All I can tell you is look at reviews and google. 

Alright, thanks a lot!!