gigabit with 2 100eth adapters on w2k3

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

hi,

i know it is possible to connect two computers with a gigabit connection
using in conjunction 2 100mbit adapters and using 2 100mbit cables. is
it possible to do this also through a 100mbit switch? and, if yes, how?


thanks for any information,

SiD`

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

SiD` wrote:

> hi,
>
> i know it is possible to connect two computers with a gigabit connection
> using in conjunction 2 100mbit adapters and using 2 100mbit cables. is
> it possible to do this also through a 100mbit switch? and, if yes, how?
>
>
> thanks for any information,

It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. Gigabit devices
autonegotiate speed with other attached devices--if a gigabit device finds
a 100 mbit device at the other end of the cable it configures itself for
100 mbit. Unless something is broken or not operating in accordance with
the standards there's nothing you have to do except plug in the cables.
>
> SiD`

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

> SiD` wrote:

>>i know it is possible to connect two computers with a gigabit connection
>>using in conjunction 2 100mbit adapters and using 2 100mbit cables. is
>>it possible to do this also through a 100mbit switch? and, if yes, how?

> It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish. Gigabit devices
> autonegotiate speed with other attached devices--if a gigabit device finds
> a 100 mbit device at the other end of the cable it configures itself for
> 100 mbit. Unless something is broken or not operating in accordance with
> the standards there's nothing you have to do except plug in the cables.

I am guessing that he is figuring that since gigabit uses four pairs
and 100baseTX uses two, that it should work.

Now, ten 100baseTX connections might not be far off with aggregation
turned on. There exist quad ethernet boards, so it wouldn't be
hard to put ten on one machine. gigabit prices are coming down
fast, though, and I am sure it would cost more for three quad
boards than one gigabit board.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> I am guessing that he is figuring that since gigabit uses four pairs
> and 100baseTX uses two, that it should work.
>
> Now, ten 100baseTX connections might not be far off with aggregation
> turned on. There exist quad ethernet boards, so it wouldn't be
> hard to put ten on one machine. gigabit prices are coming down
> fast, though, and I am sure it would cost more for three quad
> boards than one gigabit board.

uh
wow
thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"SiD`" <miki28@ngi.it> wrote in message
news:q0Xgc.76180$hc5.3275294@news3.tin.it...
> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> > I am guessing that he is figuring that since gigabit uses four pairs
> > and 100baseTX uses two, that it should work.
> >
> > Now, ten 100baseTX connections might not be far off with aggregation
> > turned on. There exist quad ethernet boards, so it wouldn't be
> > hard to put ten on one machine. gigabit prices are coming down
> > fast, though, and I am sure it would cost more for three quad
> > boards than one gigabit board.
>
> uh
> wow
> thanks

How many links you can aggregate is dependant on the hardware. Cisco 6000
series can support up to 8 FastEthernet per channel; 5000's up to 4.

BL

--
There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action. - Goethe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Buzz Lightbeer wrote:
(snip about link aggregation and gigabit using 100baseT NICs)

> How many links you can aggregate is dependant on the hardware. Cisco 6000
> series can support up to 8 FastEthernet per channel; 5000's up to 4.

Do any unix systems include support for it? Solaris?
FreeBSD? NetBSD? Linux? ...

I would expect gigabit NICs to be cheap enough by now, though,
that it wouldn't make sense to do 10 way aggregation.
-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Buzz Lightbeer wrote:
> (snip about link aggregation and gigabit using 100baseT NICs)
>
>> How many links you can aggregate is dependant on the hardware. Cisco 6000
>> series can support up to 8 FastEthernet per channel; 5000's up to 4.
>
> Do any unix systems include support for it? Solaris?
> FreeBSD? NetBSD? Linux? ...

That's really a driver issue more than anything else--aggregation is
generally transparent to the OS.

Intel has Linux that support aggregation for their server boards. Also
Windows and Netware that I know of. There are drivers for those boards for
many other Unices but I don't know if any of the others have aggregation or
not.
>
> I would expect gigabit NICs to be cheap enough by now, though,
> that it wouldn't make sense to do 10 way aggregation.
> -- glen

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

(snip regarding different unix possible support for net aggregation)

> That's really a driver issue more than anything else--aggregation is
> generally transparent to the OS.

> Intel has Linux that support aggregation for their server boards. Also
> Windows and Netware that I know of. There are drivers for those boards for
> many other Unices but I don't know if any of the others have aggregation or
> not.

It might be possible to do with a virtual device driver. Probably
the wrong word, but a device driver that does the aggregation
and deaggregation, and then passes packets to/from the hardware
device drivers. That way the code would only need to be written
once, instead of for each possible NIC.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:

> Do any unix systems include support for it? Solaris?
> FreeBSD? NetBSD? Linux? ...

If you have a FreeBSD system you may want to look at ng_one2many(4).

For Solaris there is some multi-path stuff described in if_mpadm(1M)
and in.mpathd(1M).

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

David Magda wrote:

> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:

>>Do any unix systems include support for it? Solaris?
>>FreeBSD? NetBSD? Linux? ...

> If you have a FreeBSD system you may want to look at ng_one2many(4).

I suppose it wasn't in version 3.3, which I am still running.

> For Solaris there is some multi-path stuff described in if_mpadm(1M)
> and in.mpathd(1M).

And not in 5.6, which is the newest I have access to.

It does seem that at least the solaris one runs as a user program
and not as a device driver. Somehow it must interface to the device
driver level to get data in and out, as I tried to describe previously.

The FreeBSD divert socket, as used to implement the ipfw firewall
could also do that, and may be the way ng_one2many is implemented.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:

> I suppose it wasn't in version 3.3, which I am still running.

ng_one2many(4) in particular:

HISTORY
The ng_one2many node type was implemented in FreeBSD 4.2.

netgraph(4) in general:

HISTORY
The netgraph system was designed and first implemented at
Whistle Communications, Inc. in a version of FreeBSD 2.2
customized for the Whistle InterJet. It first made its debut in
the main tree in FreeBSD 3.4.

[...]
> The FreeBSD divert socket, as used to implement the ipfw firewall
> could also do that, and may be the way ng_one2many is implemented.

I've never use it myself peronally.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI