How to force machine to choose a network.

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

I'm hoping someone can give me some suggestions on how to solve a
problem we're having here at work.

I have two desktop computers (I'll call them A and B).

1. Both A and B are connected to the company LAN via 10BaseT ethernet
cards.

2. A and B are connected to each other via a Firewire network. This
allows us to copy files between the machines significantly faster than
via the company network.

The problem is when copying files or performing other cross-machine
tasks, it seems to be random as to which network is chosen by the
machine. Even though the firewire is showing speeds of 400Mbps and the
company network shows 10Mbps, the machines seem to show no preference
for one over the other.

How can we force the machines to use the Firewire connection when
talking to each other but the company network when communicating with
the other 4000 machines in the company?
9 answers Last reply
More about force machine choose network
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:
    > Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > I have two desktop computers (I'll call them A and B).
    >
    > > 1. Both A and B are connected to the company LAN via 10BaseT
    > > ethernet cards.
    >
    > > 2. A and B are connected to each other via a Firewire
    > > network. This allows us to copy files between the machines
    > > significantly faster than via the company network.
    >
    > > The problem is when copying files or performing other
    > > cross-machine tasks, it seems to be random as to which network
    > > is chosen by the machine. Even though the firewire is showing
    > > speeds of 400Mbps and the company network shows 10Mbps, the
    > > machines seem to show no preference for one over the other.
    >
    > > How can we force the machines to use the Firewire connection
    > > when talking to each other but the company network when
    > > communicating with the other 4000 machines in the company?
    >
    > Sure! Under Linux or *BSD, just set up the routing tables for
    > each machine to the other to use the firewire interfaces. `route`
    > is your friend.
    >
    > Even MS-Windows has ROUTE.EXE , but they've changed the syntax.1`
    >
    > -- Robert

    Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
    guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    Linux on their users' workstations.

    They are running Windows XP Pro. I'll see what I can find out about
    ROUTE.EXE. Thanks.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I have two desktop computers (I'll call them A and B).

    > 1. Both A and B are connected to the company LAN via 10BaseT
    > ethernet cards.

    > 2. A and B are connected to each other via a Firewire
    > network. This allows us to copy files between the machines
    > significantly faster than via the company network.

    > The problem is when copying files or performing other
    > cross-machine tasks, it seems to be random as to which network
    > is chosen by the machine. Even though the firewire is showing
    > speeds of 400Mbps and the company network shows 10Mbps, the
    > machines seem to show no preference for one over the other.

    > How can we force the machines to use the Firewire connection
    > when talking to each other but the company network when
    > communicating with the other 4000 machines in the company?

    Sure! Under Linux or *BSD, just set up the routing tables for
    each machine to the other to use the firewire interfaces. `route`
    is your friend.

    Even MS-Windows has ROUTE.EXE , but they've changed the syntax.1`

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

    In article <1124917045.871254.176390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:

    :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
    :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    :Linux on their users' workstations.

    "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."
    --
    "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
    demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <1124917045.871254.176390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
    > :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    > :Linux on their users' workstations.
    >
    > "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."
    > --

    True, but I did mention that we had 4000 machines/desktops. That
    should have been a sign that we are pretty big.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <1124917045.871254.176390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
    > :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    > :Linux on their users' workstations.
    >
    > "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."
    > --

    Also, I already accepted responsibility for the missing information.
    Tell me how your post is relevant to the subject and helps?

    I'm not picking on you. I just see a lot of bandwidth wasted with
    people posting unnecessary flames that do nothing to help anyone other
    than possibly making the flamer feel all proud of themselves for being
    "smart".
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1124977005.178905.229620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:

    :Walter Roberson wrote:
    :> In article <1124917045.871254.176390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    :> Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:

    :> :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
    :> :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    :> :Linux on their users' workstations.

    :> "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."

    :True, but I did mention that we had 4000 machines/desktops. That
    :should have been a sign that we are pretty big.

    In the usual industry categorizations, 4000 desktops is only considered
    SMB, Small To Medium Business.

    My local department has more than 450 networked devices for 150
    employees. We're about 1/25th of of our overall organization,
    so our overall organization probably has more than 10000 networked
    systems. As I recall, we aren't big enough to make the Fortune 3000.

    The only official organization-wide policy about choice of OS is,
    "We don't -promise- that non-Windows systems or pre-Windows XP will work
    with the official email system or the integrated financial system."


    :> :I guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    :> :Linux on their users' workstations.

    You weren't talking about a large number of machines, you were
    talking about exactly -two- machines with special characteristics
    relative to your other machines. With your mention of 'firewire',
    I would have guessed Apple MacIntosh running OS X. 'firewire' is
    Apple's pre-standard product, not used in the Windows world (which
    uses the IEEE standard number.)

    You also mentioned that the regular LAN was 10BaseT. We started
    deploying 100 Mb six years ago, and we were definitely not "early
    adopters". My -expectation- would be that a Fortune 400 company would
    invest the infrastructure resources it needed in order to communicate
    efficiently.

    Your Windows desktops all have 100 Mb built in (unless you've been
    holding back to 5 year old computers too), and any replacements will
    have gigabit built in. Reputable managed gigabit layer 3 switches can
    be found for less than $US100/port ($US15/port for unmanaged
    consumer-level level 2 gigabit switches.) These days, I don't
    think it makes economic sense to stick with 10BaseT unless the
    company is -really- cash-strapped. If layer 3 gigabit isn't affordable,
    then go onto eBay and buy a bunch of used 100 Mb managed
    switches (about $US10/port) and deploy those -- or to save shipping
    and handling costs, you can probably buy them by the pallet-load from
    used equipment vendors.
    --
    "No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
    demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <1124977005.178905.229620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > :Walter Roberson wrote:
    > :> In article <1124917045.871254.176390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > :> Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > :> :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
    > :> :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
    > :> :Linux on their users' workstations.
    >
    > :> "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."
    >
    > :True, but I did mention that we had 4000 machines/desktops. That
    > :should have been a sign that we are pretty big.
    >
    > In the usual industry categorizations, 4000 desktops is only considered
    > SMB, Small To Medium Business.
    >
    > My local department has more than 450 networked devices for 150
    > employees. We're about 1/25th of of our overall organization,
    > so our overall organization probably has more than 10000 networked
    > systems. As I recall, we aren't big enough to make the Fortune 3000.
    >

    Fair enough. We're about 30000 employees if I had to guess, but only
    about 4000 PCs at my location. Regardless, you are correct... 4000
    isn't all that many computers.

    > You weren't talking about a large number of machines, you were
    > talking about exactly -two- machines with special characteristics
    > relative to your other machines. With your mention of 'firewire',
    > I would have guessed Apple MacIntosh running OS X. 'firewire' is
    > Apple's pre-standard product, not used in the Windows world (which
    > uses the IEEE standard number.)

    Good point but many of us continue to call it Firewire even though we
    are really talking about IEEE. Old habits die hard.

    >
    > You also mentioned that the regular LAN was 10BaseT. We started
    > deploying 100 Mb six years ago, and we were definitely not "early
    > adopters". My -expectation- would be that a Fortune 400 company would
    > invest the infrastructure resources it needed in order to communicate
    > efficiently.

    First off... Fortune 400's are often the last to adopt new technology.
    We had OS/2 as our primary OS until almost 2000. Pretty scary, huh?

    > Your Windows desktops all have 100 Mb built in (unless you've been
    > holding back to 5 year old computers too), and any replacements will
    > have gigabit built in. Reputable managed gigabit layer 3 switches can
    > be found for less than $US100/port ($US15/port for unmanaged
    > consumer-level level 2 gigabit switches.) These days, I don't
    > think it makes economic sense to stick with 10BaseT unless the
    > company is -really- cash-strapped. If layer 3 gigabit isn't affordable,
    > then go onto eBay and buy a bunch of used 100 Mb managed
    > switches (about $US10/port) and deploy those -- or to save shipping
    > and handling costs, you can probably buy them by the pallet-load from
    > used equipment vendors.

    I think the machines themselves actually do have 100 Mb built-in but
    the routers are 10 Mb so the speed of the LAN is 10 Mb. Whatever the
    reason, the LAN shows 10 Mb.

    Price is irrelevant when it comes to the beauracracy of a big company.
    In fact, it is common knowledge that if we recommend a piece of free
    software, it will never get approved. Recommend a $20,000 USD piece of
    software that isn't quite as good and it'll get approved almost
    immediately. It's almost an inside joke and just make one feel that
    Dilbert's life is all too real.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1125088639.160933.283700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:

    :I think the machines themselves actually do have 100 Mb built-in but
    :the routers are 10 Mb so the speed of the LAN is 10 Mb. Whatever the
    :reason, the LAN shows 10 Mb.

    In a case such as that, I would think about upgrading the LAN
    switches to 100 Mb+, and putting a LAN switch between the rest of
    the LAN and the router. That way, traffic within the LAN would
    flow at 100 Mb+, and the bottleneck wouldn't be any worse than
    it was before.

    I'd be tempted, in a topology like that, to make that intermediate
    LAN switch (connecting the router) a Layer 3+ switch, so as to
    do the routing for local IP spaces at the new faster speeds,
    only requiring the slower 10 Mb link for traffic going off-LAN.

    But this would of course depend upon the traffic patterns.
    --
    "I will speculate that [...] applications [...] could actually see a
    performance boost for most users by going dual-core [...] because it
    is running the adware and spyware that [...] are otherwise slowing
    down the single CPU that user has today" -- Herb Sutter
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <1125088639.160933.283700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    > Ninja67 <Ninja67@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > :I think the machines themselves actually do have 100 Mb built-in but
    > :the routers are 10 Mb so the speed of the LAN is 10 Mb. Whatever the
    > :reason, the LAN shows 10 Mb.
    >
    > In a case such as that, I would think about upgrading the LAN
    > switches to 100 Mb+, and putting a LAN switch between the rest of
    > the LAN and the router. That way, traffic within the LAN would
    > flow at 100 Mb+, and the bottleneck wouldn't be any worse than
    > it was before.
    >
    > I'd be tempted, in a topology like that, to make that intermediate
    > LAN switch (connecting the router) a Layer 3+ switch, so as to
    > do the routing for local IP spaces at the new faster speeds,
    > only requiring the slower 10 Mb link for traffic going off-LAN.
    >
    > But this would of course depend upon the traffic patterns.

    Roger that, but I'm not the network guy and don't even work in the I.T.
    department, so the day they let me get near a router will be a cold day
    in hell indeed.
Ask a new question

Read More

Ethernet Card Firewire Networking