Routers, switches, et. al.

[ToonGal]

I am planning on using my HTPC as a P2P machine simultaneously (when the parts come in). On my trial run, my slow machine was able to handle the dual tasks, so I'm not too worried about the new machine doing the same. However, my router was frequently overwhelmed during high connections/traffic on the p2p side, while trying to stream from the HTPC server.

My question is if I can have a dedicated switch after the router, whose sole function is to handle all local LAN traffic. If/when there is a WAN request, my assumption is the router would handle it.

Would the separation truly isolate LAN/WAN traffic, or merely add an extra link going to the router (which has a switch)?

I have a spare switch, and potentially am thinking of upgrading to a gigabit one (once I finish rewiring the house w/out wireless).

Thanks for the help gang!

[gplasky]

Since you are doing p2p and Sage on the same machine I would believe your single NIC in that machine becomes the bottle neck. Wouldn't it make more sense to have 2 NIC's in that machine so that you would keep the traffic serperate that way?

Gerry

[ToonGal]

@gplasky:
Interesting idea. Never occurred to me. Used to have a dual LAN for different purposes, but didn't even consider it here.

How would machines know to use the internal LAN switch instead of accessing the external WAN router, since all machines are connected to both?

From what I've seen, the bottleneck has been at the router itself, but maybe it really was at the NIC.

[Niles]

Hold on a second, two NICs? This would only be possible under a Windows Server environment, (e.g. Windows NT, 2000 and 2003). Windows 9x, 2000 and XP workstations can not handle two NICs. Even though you may see both NICs only one is going to work.

I just upgraded to 1 GB Ethernet and my video streaming issues are gone. Plus I can continue to multi-task with other apps, down load, file transfers, etc... all at the same time. Fiber 1 GB, or FX, will only provided a little more, but not worth the money.

$250 got me two Intel 10/100/1000 NICs and a 3Com 8 port GB switch. I now have Sage Client install on 6 computers (4 computers already have gigabit built-in) in my house and I can play the same video file on all six with no skips or hesitations. Of course I am using five 74 Gb 10,000rpm SATA 8MB cache drive in a "stripped" RAID configuration. Plus 2Gbs of DDR400 memory You will need it to support more than two computers.

As for the router it should not be an issue as long as it supports gigabit Ethernet, but over a WAN (Cable, DSL, T1) connect, YIKES!!!

[gplasky]

Of course Windows XP and 2000 can handle 2 NICs. My motherboard has two NICs. I have both operating and the machine is configured as an Internet Connection Sharing machine. The one NIC goes to the Cable modem. The second NIC goes to the switch. All other machines on the network are directed to the ICS machine to use that as their Internet Conncection. Just so you know you can define a Bridge Connection in Windows XP. There are also more sophisticated setups you can do with 2 NICs in the machine.
Example:
.

NOTE: If you have more than two potential internal networks, ICS requires that you specify which network should be the private network that is used by ICS. For example, you may have one network connection to the Internet, two additional network connections that are part of a bridge, and a fourth network connection (for example, a wireless connection). In this example, either the wireless connection or the bridged connection could be configured as the private ICS network. If your intent is to have both the current bridged connections and the wireless connection be configured as the private ICS network, you must add the wireless connection to the bridge. If you do not, you must choose which network is the private ICS network, and which network is allowed to access the Internet through the Windows XP-based ICS host.

Gerry

ToonGal: I would think you could define a gateway to direct the machines to use a particular NIC for Internet access. All other traffic would stay local

[Niles]

Well yes, if you are using ICS, but you still run into the bottle neck issue as one of the NICs is being used for the internet only and all other traffice from the network must pass through this box. I was under the impression that ToonGal wanted to increase the bandwidth by using two NICs.

Though Winddows 200 and XP can use both NICs one for local network and the other bridge to the internet or another local subnet, it is not possible to utilize both on the same subnet to increase bandwidth.

Plus with ICS you run into the issue of it failing and therefore losing internet conectivity. It is best to purchase a router to handle this and most of them have basic fairewalls built-in.

ToonGal:

For Windows 2000:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...share_conn.htm

For Windows XP:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp

[gplasky]

She's only trying to seperate the WAN/LAN traffic. Not increase the bandwidth.

Gerry

[ToonGal]

Too true gplasky. Just trying to offload LAN traffic from my (cheap) router. The dual ethernet is something I would do if it came down to that, but wiring for ONE jack per computer is already inconvenient (if possible).

Anybody know if I put a switch (eventually a gigabit one) behind the router as the only connection with every computer connected to it, if it would offload any traffic for the router (since it only needs to go there for WAN traffic) or simply add another link in the chain?

Thanks again for all the productive feedback.

[Niles]

ToolGal,

Asuming that the router is connected to the Internet (e.g. Cable, DSL).

Traffic on your network will only travel inside unless you make a request that can not be found on your network (e.g. http://www.microsoft.com).

Basicly you would have your router between the gigabit swtich and your connection to the internet. All comupters would be connected the gigabit swtich and therefore any requested resource that resided on yuuor network would obviously stay inside the network. Request such http://www.microsoft.com would go through your router and then your internet connnect.

Toogal if you are seeing lights blinking continuosly on your router even though you are not making any request, this is normal.

[insomniac]

So uh...i dunno what Niles is talking about, but you can absolutely bridge 2 nics in xp and i believe 2k in order to double your lan bandwidth. Been there, done that, liked it.

forgot to add:

Let them both grab dhcp from your router and then right click one of them and choose bridge. You cannot bridge if your using ICS of course, but why would you use ICS if your behind a router. No real need for another switch unless your going gigabit of course.

I.

[gplasky]

Didn't mean to complicate it by throwing ICS in there-it was anotther option. The reason I brought up the dual NICs was this. If the dual NICs were in your HTPC/p2p machine then by defining a route you could have all your Internet/p2p traffic going thru NIC A. NIC B would strictly be used as your LAN connection. That way if you're streaming video from HTPC to a client it should use NIC B and you would have full bandwidth thru NIC B. All your p2p traffic would go thru NIC A and not affect your clients, thus eliminating any possible stutter when using the Sage client.

Gerry

[Niles]

insomniac,

Could you send me a link to the program or configuration steps on setting up Windows XP to utilize two NICs to increase bandwidth, though this would be a less effective approach over gigabit, I interested on seeing how you circumvented Microsoft's code to achieve this. Bridging would only allow Windows to act as a router, therefore taking away even more system resources.

gplasky,

Though you are correct in your configuration, although the HTPC computer would, as mentioned above, lose valuable system resources. CPU, memory, system bus and possibly the hard drive will still get a hit from the traffic going through NIC A.

I understand that Toongal may be trying to save some money but in the long run you would be wasting it if you didn't spend on some new hardware to off load such request.

Toongal,

Spend the extra money and save your self the headaches. Been there, done that, hate it.

[gplasky]

Hard drive should onlly be affected if she is downloading or uploading via the p2p network. For the most part this should be ideal because the second NIC would only be utilized for LAN traffic and should allow the stream to go to the client uninterrupted. And if she has 2 drives/2 partitions this would work even better for the client.

Gerry

Niles: Depending upon what NIC you purchase some of them have an application with them that allows you to "team" the 2 NICs so that the OS sees them as one.

[ToonGal]

Originally posted by Niles
Asuming that the router is connected to the Internet (e.g. Cable, DSL).

Traffic on your network will only travel inside unless you make a request that can not be found on your network (e.g. http://www.microsoft.com).

Basicly you would have your router between the gigabit swtich and your connection to the internet. All comupters would be connected the gigabit swtich and therefore any requested resource that resided on yuuor network would obviously stay inside the network. Request such http://www.microsoft.com would go through your router and then your internet connnect.

Toogal if you are seeing lights blinking continuosly on your router even though you are not making any request, this is normal.

Not exactly what I asked, but I am getting closer. Here's what I asked / have in mind:

(internet) <-> (router) <-> (switch) <-> (computers)

In my architecture, I want the switch between the current router and computers. The problem is to minimize load on the router, so while your architecture might work, there's no need for it to pass thru requests if my way would work. The router has a built-in switch, and by doing it your way, I'm afraid that it won't pass-thru the way you describe.

Eventually the absolute plan is to make the switch a gigabit one, connecting it to all the computers in the house.

[salsbst]

Your switch will not bother the router for LAN traffic. That's the advantage of a true switch over a true hub. The switch doesn't broadcast data, rather it learns the IP addresses of each node and routes directly.

[jmiddleton]

Intel offers a feature called port aggregation on their server adapters. This allows up to four ports to share a single IP address. I've used this on NT and Win2K servers but haven't had a requirement to try it on a workstation. According to the Intel documentation, port aggregation will work on Win2K Pro and XP Pro. With a low cost switch the aggregation is only 1 way because the switch can't associate a single IP with multiple cards but you still double (or quadruple) the speed that data flows from the computer to the switch. If you are using this machine as a server for Sage and/or P2P this is exactly what you want. Port aggregation is a far better choice than a bridge - which essentially broadcasts all traffic over both networks. Intel makes 2 & 4 port cards so you only need 1 pci slot. They aren't cheap but but do represent a good value if you need the extra bandwidth. More info http://www.intel.com/network/connect...r_adapters.htm

[insomniac]

hmm...granted, you are turning xp into a mini router, but as far as I know, by doing this you can also enable load balancing on each nic. Hence increasing overall bandwidth.

enabling load balancing?

"HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\NetBT\Param eters\RandomAdapter" 'Dword 1=enable 0=disable

"HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\NetBT\Param eters\SingleResponse" 'Dword 1=enable 0=disable

Links:
http://www.pctechnicians.ca/help/XPbridge.html

some bs here, but youll find some links:
http://forums.infoprosjoint.net/printthread.php?t=5015

This one looks like you cannot bridge and load balance...not sure:
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Art...258/23258.html

NIC combining software:
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/A...57/pg/4/4.html

I dunno ...much conflicting opinions on this...seemed to load balance for me..Especially with multiple clients pulling different streams..maybe im just craaaaaazy

I.

[sixdoubleo]

Originally posted by ToonGal
Not exactly what I asked, but I am getting closer. Here's what I asked / have in mind:

(internet) <-> (router) <-> (switch) <-> (computers)

In my architecture, I want the switch between the current router and computers. The problem is to minimize load on the router, so while your architecture might work, there's no need for it to pass thru requests if my way would work. The router has a built-in switch, and by doing it your way, I'm afraid that it won't pass-thru the way you describe.

That is correct. DIRECTED traffic between two internal hosts would not hit the router. However, BROADCAST and MULTICAST traffic would hit the router and probably overshadow any small savings you would realize. All Microsoft-based network clients use the concept of "Browsing" to discover each other (ever see the "Computer Browser" service in NT/2000/XP??) This browsing can generate a lot of broadcast traffic which defeats your efforts anyway. In addition, Server Message Block (the protocol that MS uses) is very "chatty"...meaning it broadcasts quit a bit. So separate switches don't matter in this case.

Also, keep in mind that your "Router" is actually a switch with a router attached, packaged in one box, but electronically, they are separate devices. So even if you plugged everything to the "Router", you're actually plugging into the switch component of the router, and nothing is actually being processed by the router module itself. Switches operate on Layer 2 and Routers operate on Layer 3. Period. When talking about SOHO equipment like Linksys and Netgear, the Layer 2 function of the switch has nothing to do with the Layer 3 function of the router. Keep that in mind.

One thought would be to use the built-in DMZ port of your router (if it has one) for your dedicated P2P machine. This truly segregates the DMZ from the internal network by virtue of separate subnets and ensures isolation. If your router does not have a DMZ port, you can create a DMZ with two routers.....like this:

(ROUTER1)<---->(P2PBOX)<---->(ROUTER2)---->(SWITCH)


With what you're talking about doing, the only traffic savings you will see is that of the switch not having to process directed Layer 2 traffic, which, in my opinion, is negligable given that your P2P box is only moving data at the speed of your internet connection, which is probably about 1/100th the capacity of your switch.

So I'd say don't worry about it. But if you want to segragate the P2P box from a SECURITY standpoint (which I would totally agree with) then you'd need to put it on its own subnet, ala the DMZ type setup.

Hope this helps.

[sixdoubleo]

Originally posted by sixdoubleo
dedicated P2P box

OOPS! I missed the part where you said your P2P and HTPC were one in the same. Disregard my long-winded post!

The dual-NIC suggestions would pretty much do a decent job of dividing WAN/LAN traffic. However, I would really, really, really frown upon putting P2P on ANYTHING that you care about.

P2P is bad....very bad...messy, uses lots of resources, intrusive, and very questionable, security-wise. I do all my P2P stuff on a total gineau pig machine here at home. If I blow it up, get a virus, or whatever, I just reghost it. But if something were to happen to my HTPC or another machine, it'd probably ruin my week.

I'd consider putting P2P on something else.

[ToonGal]

Originally posted by sixdoubleo
DIRECTED traffic between two internal hosts would not hit the router. However, BROADCAST and MULTICAST traffic would hit the router and probably overshadow any small savings you would realize.

This is VERY close to what I think I need to understand. The basic LAN usages I have are moving files from my HTPC/p2p to other computers and streaming files from my HTPC/p2p. I don't think I use too much BROADCAST or MULTICAST on the LAN.

The problem with high LAN usage is that it affects the WAN portion of the Belkin WAN/LAN/switch/router. My thought is that a cheap 10/100 switch (which I can take out of my parents system; they just need a hub of which I have lots) would take traffic off the router/switch if a separate switch was dedicated behind it for all LAN traffic. The only time it hits the router/switch is for WAN activity (of which it has supported for years).

From what I read, I'm guessing that this translates into DIRECTED traffic, as defined above. Basically, I see SageTV, media players (off the server), and file utilities (Total Commander, Windows explorer) benefiting because the LAN traffic is always point-to-point, not broadcast to all. Obviously, please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

It has been so much effort to rewire ONE jack for each computer, I'd hate to think I have to repeat the process for a 2nd (although 2nd one would be easier).

Thanks again for the help. Exactly what I was hoping to hear.

PS. P2P not that insecure if you know what you are doing, IMHO. Almost six years without a single event. Worst case, they virus my TV shows... All is good in general. Thanks for the concern.