Any benefit to 2 nics in a server?

I have a server that streams videos...

Each client only uses about 40% of a 100 mbit connection (I know this
because the 3rd client brings the network to its knees).

So I've been thining of putting a second NIC in the server, and connecting
it to the switch.

I am not talking about bonding; I am talking about some sort of multiple
routing, where each client can talk to one nic at a time...

Does this make sense? Is it possible?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking,
in article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
Captain Dondo wrote:

>I have a server that streams videos...
>
>Each client only uses about 40% of a 100 mbit connection (I know this
>because the 3rd client brings the network to its knees).

What is the load on the server - what is the limiting bottleneck?

>So I've been thining of putting a second NIC in the server, and connecting
>it to the switch.
>I am not talking about bonding; I am talking about some sort of multiple
>routing, where each client can talk to one nic at a time...
>
>Does this make sense?

Yes, Assuming the data bus in the server can handle multiple NIC at that
load level, and you have some form of round robin DNS to distribute the
load to the various NICs on the server, and you've done the hand-waving
needed (see the Adv-Routing-HOWTO), it should be practical.

>Is it possible?

Yes - but what I'd recommend as more practical is to change the existing
NIC and switch to Gigabit of some kind, retaining the 100BaseT on the
other side of the switch. Unless you have a very muscular server, you're
not likely to be able to fill the Gigabit pipe, and hopefully the switch
should be able to keep up. It has to be able to speed switch between ports
and that takes horsepower in the switch.

Old guy