Dual Homed Question

Hello All:

Have 2 servers that require alot of data transfer between the two. Rather
than dragging all that data across the network, I dual homed both servers
1 - 10/100 and 1 - 10/1000. The configuration is below. The thought was to
map a drive using IP address of the GIG card and force file transfers
through that connection. In theory it sounds good but noticed that with the
GIG NICS enabled, file transfer was horrible. Was the thinking behind this
technically sound? If not why and what could be done to make this scenario
work.

Thanks

Server 1
10/100 ip - 192.168.1.2
10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.2

Server 2

10/100 ip - 192.168.1.3
10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.3

Mapped Drive Server 1 to Server 2 by IP of 10/1000 .

Any input appreciated.

It sounds reasonable, but there are so many variables...

What is the physical connection between the two Gig cards? Are they going
via a Gig switch or hub? What other loading is there? Are they showing as
Gig connections in the network status?

Are subnets etc. configured correctly on the NICs? I.e. does "route print"
on each machine look like the traffic should be going through the gigabit
connections?

After that you can get into performance tuning the actual network
connections ( search for gigabit in
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ec6/tuning.doc )
but in my experience other file transfer protocols such as scp or FTP or
HTTP are quicker than using Windows file sharing.

--
Adam

"DJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello All:
>
> Have 2 servers that require alot of data transfer between the two. Rather
> than dragging all that data across the network, I dual homed both servers
> 1 - 10/100 and 1 - 10/1000. The configuration is below. The thought was to
> map a drive using IP address of the GIG card and force file transfers
> through that connection. In theory it sounds good but noticed that with
> the GIG NICS enabled, file transfer was horrible. Was the thinking behind
> this technically sound? If not why and what could be done to make this
> scenario work.
>
> Thanks
>
> Server 1
> 10/100 ip - 192.168.1.2
> 10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.2
>
> Server 2
>
> 10/100 ip - 192.168.1.3
> 10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.3
>
> Mapped Drive Server 1 to Server 2 by IP of 10/1000 .
>
> Any input appreciated.
>
>
>
>

Sorry, should have mentioned that. they were connected NIC to NIC with a
cat5e crossover. No other network devices to cause any issues. Thought it
was straight forward but apparently I missed something.


"Adam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AB1CCA1C-A3C1-4850-9034-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> It sounds reasonable, but there are so many variables...
>
> What is the physical connection between the two Gig cards? Are they going
> via a Gig switch or hub? What other loading is there? Are they showing as
> Gig connections in the network status?
>
> Are subnets etc. configured correctly on the NICs? I.e. does "route
> print" on each machine look like the traffic should be going through the
> gigabit connections?
>
> After that you can get into performance tuning the actual network
> connections ( search for gigabit in
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ec6/tuning.doc )
> but in my experience other file transfer protocols such as scp or FTP or
> HTTP are quicker than using Windows file sharing.
>
> --
> Adam
>
> "DJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hello All:
>>
>> Have 2 servers that require alot of data transfer between the two. Rather
>> than dragging all that data across the network, I dual homed both servers
>> 1 - 10/100 and 1 - 10/1000. The configuration is below. The thought was
>> to map a drive using IP address of the GIG card and force file transfers
>> through that connection. In theory it sounds good but noticed that with
>> the GIG NICS enabled, file transfer was horrible. Was the thinking behind
>> this technically sound? If not why and what could be done to make this
>> scenario work.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Server 1
>> 10/100 ip - 192.168.1.2
>> 10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.2
>>
>> Server 2
>>
>> 10/100 ip - 192.168.1.3
>> 10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.3
>>
>> Mapped Drive Server 1 to Server 2 by IP of 10/1000 .
>>
>> Any input appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

As you said, it sounds great in theory. In practice it almost always
fails. The basic reason is name resolution.

When a machine has something to send to another machine it needs to know
its address. If the machines has two addresses, which one does it use? If it
looks in DNS and gets a 192.168.1 IP address for the target, it will send
the traffic through its own 192.168.1 NIC.

"DJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Sorry, should have mentioned that. they were connected NIC to NIC with a
> cat5e crossover. No other network devices to cause any issues. Thought it
> was straight forward but apparently I missed something.
>
>
> "Adam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:AB1CCA1C-A3C1-4850-9034-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> It sounds reasonable, but there are so many variables...
>>
>> What is the physical connection between the two Gig cards? Are they
>> going via a Gig switch or hub? What other loading is there? Are they
>> showing as Gig connections in the network status?
>>
>> Are subnets etc. configured correctly on the NICs? I.e. does "route
>> print" on each machine look like the traffic should be going through the
>> gigabit connections?
>>
>> After that you can get into performance tuning the actual network
>> connections ( search for gigabit in
>> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ec6/tuning.doc )
>> but in my experience other file transfer protocols such as scp or FTP or
>> HTTP are quicker than using Windows file sharing.
>>
>> --
>> Adam
>>
>> "DJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hello All:
>>>
>>> Have 2 servers that require alot of data transfer between the two.
>>> Rather than dragging all that data across the network, I dual homed both
>>> servers 1 - 10/100 and 1 - 10/1000. The configuration is below. The
>>> thought was to map a drive using IP address of the GIG card and force
>>> file transfers through that connection. In theory it sounds good but
>>> noticed that with the GIG NICS enabled, file transfer was horrible. Was
>>> the thinking behind this technically sound? If not why and what could be
>>> done to make this scenario work.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Server 1
>>> 10/100 ip - 192.168.1.2
>>> 10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.2
>>>
>>> Server 2
>>>
>>> 10/100 ip - 192.168.1.3
>>> 10/1000 ip - 192.168.2.3
>>>
>>> Mapped Drive Server 1 to Server 2 by IP of 10/1000 .
>>>
>>> Any input appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
DJ <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
> Sorry, should have mentioned that. they were connected NIC to NIC
> with a cat5e crossover. No other network devices to cause any issues.
> Thought it was straight forward but apparently I missed something.

Bill's on the money with what's going on. How to fix it is another issue.
First, I hope these servers are not DCs. More problems will ensue.

To fix it make sure only one of the NICs have a gateway. The way it looks,
the 192.168.1.x subnet will have the gate.

Then in Network Connections, Advanced, Advanced Settings, make sure the
primary network is at the top of the binding order. I know you may want it
the other way, but the primary network is what it needs to communicate on
with the services it's providing.

For the NICs on the 192.168.2.x subnet, disable NetBIOS., Yes, this will
create an issue with two name on one IP. Make sure WINS is not set on that
NIC too. Yes, both NICs will try to register themselves with their NetBIOS
name and services, which will cause them to clash. Can't have two brothers
named Darryl...

Connect with IP addresses only with UNC or mapped drives. Otherwise if you
want to use FQDN hostname (not NetBIOS) resolution, create an additional
name for the 192.168.2.x NIC, such as on server 1, I may choose "server1b".
You can choose and create whatever name you want. It's just to distinguish
the two.

I hope that helps.

Now if these are DCs, there are many many more steps to follow, wihch I can
post with a full explanation as to why.

--
Ace
Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
Willow Grove, PA

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows you
to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
watched threads or subject.
It's easy:

How to Configure OEx for Internet News
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
"Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."

The only constant in life is change...

Thanks all. Makes sense now. I mapped the drive for the GIG nic by IP so
therefore I figured on a drag and drop, the machine would not need name
resolution. Guess that is not the case from what I am reading here.

Thanks again. Not DC's by the way. Just 2 work horses and I was trying to
cut down on some network traffic.

"Ace Fekay [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
> DJ <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
>> Sorry, should have mentioned that. they were connected NIC to NIC
>> with a cat5e crossover. No other network devices to cause any issues.
>> Thought it was straight forward but apparently I missed something.
>
> Bill's on the money with what's going on. How to fix it is another issue.
> First, I hope these servers are not DCs. More problems will ensue.
>
> To fix it make sure only one of the NICs have a gateway. The way it looks,
> the 192.168.1.x subnet will have the gate.
>
> Then in Network Connections, Advanced, Advanced Settings, make sure the
> primary network is at the top of the binding order. I know you may want it
> the other way, but the primary network is what it needs to communicate on
> with the services it's providing.
>
> For the NICs on the 192.168.2.x subnet, disable NetBIOS., Yes, this will
> create an issue with two name on one IP. Make sure WINS is not set on that
> NIC too. Yes, both NICs will try to register themselves with their NetBIOS
> name and services, which will cause them to clash. Can't have two brothers
> named Darryl...
>
> Connect with IP addresses only with UNC or mapped drives. Otherwise if you
> want to use FQDN hostname (not NetBIOS) resolution, create an additional
> name for the 192.168.2.x NIC, such as on server 1, I may choose
> "server1b". You can choose and create whatever name you want. It's just to
> distinguish the two.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Now if these are DCs, there are many many more steps to follow, wihch I
> can post with a full explanation as to why.
>
> --
> Ace
> Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
> Willow Grove, PA
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
>
> Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
> Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
> or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
> news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
> Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows
> you to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's
> name, watched threads or subject.
> It's easy:
>
> How to Configure OEx for Internet News
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164
>
> Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
> Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
> "Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."
>
> The only constant in life is change...
>

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
DJ <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
> Thanks all. Makes sense now. I mapped the drive for the GIG nic by IP
> so therefore I figured on a drag and drop, the machine would not need
> name resolution. Guess that is not the case from what I am reading
> here.
> Thanks again. Not DC's by the way. Just 2 work horses and I was
> trying to cut down on some network traffic.

Cool. Good luck with everything!

Ace