Static Route between 2 servers w/ 2 nics? 1

[StevieCrack]

Here's the scenario:

I have two servers (win2003 server on each), previously with one nic card in each.

Communication is slow between them because they have to go through an unmanaged switch to find each other.

I need them to communicate with one another as fast as possible - so I installed another NIC card in each computer so I can do a direct PC to PC connection.

How do I direct each server to communicate with each other thru the second nic and not to use the primary? Obviously, if they connect straight to each other it will be faster.. but how do I ensure that it will not use the other nic and go thru the switch?


Help!

Thank you.

 

[stubnski]

What speed is your nics, cable and switch? The impact a dumb gigabit switch has on network traffic is minimal.


Stubnski

 

[burtsbees]

Once MAC addresses are learned in a switch, packets automatically go out that port. The throughput is actually doubled. What kind of switch?

Burt

 

[StevieCrack]

Nics are 10/100/1000
Cable is cat5e
Switch is gigabit

It is taking awhile for data communication so we figure a cable from PC to PC would be faster. Are you saying that this would be incorrect?

 

[LawnBoy]

That would be incorrect, unless the switch is faulty.



"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[LawnBoy]

AHEM, with one caveat. If the switch is running STP, that can cause delays when the switch or anything connected to it is rebooted.

Since you mentioned the switch is unmanaged, I am certain that its not running STP.


"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[StevieCrack]

Why would it be faster for it to go thru a switch and to go direct? Can you clarify?

 

[EzLogic]

It should (in theory and in some cases) to be faster response using a diret connect.

if 10 users are requesting large data files form the server using the switch and at the same time the second server is requesting data, then the switch has to deligate the data movement.

however, while those 10 users are accessing using NIC1 with the switch, the other server can get directly with no trafic to compete with on the second NIC2.

or am I wrong on this?

Ali Koumaiha
Wireless Toyz
Farmington Hills, Michigan

 

[LawnBoy]

If you are out of bandwidth your comms will slow down, but that is not the fault of the switch, it is a measure of the capacity of the NIC in the server.

It would not be 'faster' or 'slower' going through a switch (disregarding possible bandwidth issues not mentioned in the original post).

This statement, by itself, is misguided:

Communication is slow between them because they have to go through an unmanaged switch to find each other.

A switch does not produce any measureable latency in a network.




"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[burtsbees]

Lawn, Netgear makes unmanaged switches with STP you cannot turn off. Why, you may ask? Perhaps an evil prank, we may never know...
Tekno...what manufacturer of switch? The direct connection (GB) from pc to pc will not necessarily be faster---like I said, once the switch knows what port to forward traffic out (as learned and written to the bridge table, i.e. what mac address is associated with what port), then full duplex communication is the same. Your problem lies elseware...I would download Wire Shark and see what traffic is going through your network.

Burt

 

[LawnBoy]

I didn't know that about Netgear, thanks for the tip Burt.


"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[StevieCrack]

regardless of how fast it will be, how do i force communication between both pcs thru the second nic (which is directly connected to the other pc) ?

 

[burtsbees]

Different subnets, and do the routing in the command line with "route add" statements. The cables are likely needing to be crossover, but who knows...maybe pc NICs and server NICs can auto-sense too...

Burt

 

[gb0mb]

One way to tell if your unmanaged switch is in fact running stp is it will take a long time to get a DHCP address. This is because it cycles through I think a 30 or 45 second start up. Once it cycles though it would not hinder performance.

Gb0mb

........99.9% User Error........

 

[jimbopalmer]

Lets assume your current subnet is 192.168.1.x

You can add a second NIC on each server 192.168.2.x with no gateway address, and refer to the other server as \\192.168.2.102\data (as an example)

This will always use the dedicated NIC, but it is unlikely that it will be measurably faster or slower than a correctly configured gigabit switch.

I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[burtsbees]

gb0mb, that's not necessarily true, as sometimes switches with STP enabled that you cannot turn off will portfast on all non-blocking ports.

Burt

 

[Battlewagon]

insert an entry in each servers host file that points to each other.

server A - 2nd nic IP = 192.168.10.10
Server B - 2nd nic IP = 192.168.10.100

server A host file entry:

192.168.10.100 serverA

Server B host file entry:

192.168.10.10 ServerB

Then just ping to confirm. Any applications, i.e. SQL applications, that request data by server name will use this routing.

Not sure this will work in your specific case but it worked for me with my SQL application.

 

[Battlewagon]

OOPS...did the host file entries backwards...below is corrected =====>

server A host file entry:

192.168.10.100 serverB

Server B host file entry:

192.168.10.10 ServerA