Multiple NICs in server

Hello,

we have three servers that all have three NICS in them. One NIC in each is
going to the main network the others are being crossed over to the other
servers for doing file pulls so that it doesn't affect the rest of the
network. One thing we noticed is that with all three NIC's up and connected
the response times on the network when connecting to any of the servers are
greatly degraded. By removing the cross connects everything speeds up.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jeremey

Use switches

Don't do full-mesh networking through crossover cables.

Try going down to two NICs in each server, with the second nic connected to
a server only switch.

Without more information about traffic levels and such, I can't suggest much
more.

Matt Gibson - GSEC



"Jeremey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:E56771AD-AE21-4850-8EF6-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> we have three servers that all have three NICS in them. One NIC in each
> is
> going to the main network the others are being crossed over to the other
> servers for doing file pulls so that it doesn't affect the rest of the
> network. One thing we noticed is that with all three NIC's up and
> connected
> the response times on the network when connecting to any of the servers
> are
> greatly degraded. By removing the cross connects everything speeds up.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremey

I would even go so far as to say one nic in each. The machine won't even
use the other nics in most cases because the host name of the machine will
only resolve to one IP#.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com



"Matt Gibson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OS$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Use switches
>
> Don't do full-mesh networking through crossover cables.
>
> Try going down to two NICs in each server, with the second nic connected
to
> a server only switch.
>
> Without more information about traffic levels and such, I can't suggest
much
> more.
>
> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>
>
>
> "Jeremey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:E56771AD-AE21-4850-8EF6-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hello,
> >
> > we have three servers that all have three NICS in them. One NIC in each
> > is
> > going to the main network the others are being crossed over to the other
> > servers for doing file pulls so that it doesn't affect the rest of the
> > network. One thing we noticed is that with all three NIC's up and
> > connected
> > the response times on the network when connecting to any of the servers
> > are
> > greatly degraded. By removing the cross connects everything speeds up.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeremey
>
>

Agreed, but one could use custom routing tables to override such behavior.

Matt Gibson - GSEC

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I would even go so far as to say one nic in each. The machine won't even
> use the other nics in most cases because the host name of the machine will
> only resolve to one IP#.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>
>
> "Matt Gibson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:OS$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Use switches
>>
>> Don't do full-mesh networking through crossover cables.
>>
>> Try going down to two NICs in each server, with the second nic connected
> to
>> a server only switch.
>>
>> Without more information about traffic levels and such, I can't suggest
> much
>> more.
>>
>> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>>
>>
>>
>> "Jeremey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:E56771AD-AE21-4850-8EF6-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > we have three servers that all have three NICS in them. One NIC in
>> > each
>> > is
>> > going to the main network the others are being crossed over to the
>> > other
>> > servers for doing file pulls so that it doesn't affect the rest of the
>> > network. One thing we noticed is that with all three NIC's up and
>> > connected
>> > the response times on the network when connecting to any of the servers
>> > are
>> > greatly degraded. By removing the cross connects everything speeds up.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jeremey
>>
>>
>
>

Yea, as long as IP#s were used to specify the target instead of any "names".
Or I guess a guy could create fake static Names in WINS (or DNS) and assign
IP#s to those names, then use those names as the "target".

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

"Matt Gibson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Agreed, but one could use custom routing tables to override such behavior.
>
> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>
> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I would even go so far as to say one nic in each. The machine won't even
> > use the other nics in most cases because the host name of the machine
will
> > only resolve to one IP#.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > www.wandtv.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "Matt Gibson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:OS$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Use switches
> >>
> >> Don't do full-mesh networking through crossover cables.
> >>
> >> Try going down to two NICs in each server, with the second nic
connected
> > to
> >> a server only switch.
> >>
> >> Without more information about traffic levels and such, I can't suggest
> > much
> >> more.
> >>
> >> Matt Gibson - GSEC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Jeremey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:E56771AD-AE21-4850-8EF6-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > we have three servers that all have three NICS in them. One NIC in
> >> > each
> >> > is
> >> > going to the main network the others are being crossed over to the
> >> > other
> >> > servers for doing file pulls so that it doesn't affect the rest of
the
> >> > network. One thing we noticed is that with all three NIC's up and
> >> > connected
> >> > the response times on the network when connecting to any of the
servers
> >> > are
> >> > greatly degraded. By removing the cross connects everything speeds
up.
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Jeremey
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

*Grin*

Either way, it's not something I'd want to do.

I fully agree with your original point, if you can get away with one NIC,
then use one NIC.

Matt Gibson - GSEC

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yea, as long as IP#s were used to specify the target instead of any
> "names".
> Or I guess a guy could create fake static Names in WINS (or DNS) and
> assign
> IP#s to those names, then use those names as the "target".
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> "Matt Gibson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Agreed, but one could use custom routing tables to override such
>> behavior.
>>
>> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>>
>> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I would even go so far as to say one nic in each. The machine won't
>> >even
>> > use the other nics in most cases because the host name of the machine
> will
>> > only resolve to one IP#.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
>> > www.wandtv.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Matt Gibson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:OS$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Use switches
>> >>
>> >> Don't do full-mesh networking through crossover cables.
>> >>
>> >> Try going down to two NICs in each server, with the second nic
> connected
>> > to
>> >> a server only switch.
>> >>
>> >> Without more information about traffic levels and such, I can't
>> >> suggest
>> > much
>> >> more.
>> >>
>> >> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Jeremey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> news:E56771AD-AE21-4850-8EF6-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > we have three servers that all have three NICS in them. One NIC in
>> >> > each
>> >> > is
>> >> > going to the main network the others are being crossed over to the
>> >> > other
>> >> > servers for doing file pulls so that it doesn't affect the rest of
> the
>> >> > network. One thing we noticed is that with all three NIC's up and
>> >> > connected
>> >> > the response times on the network when connecting to any of the
> servers
>> >> > are
>> >> > greatly degraded. By removing the cross connects everything speeds
> up.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Jeremey
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

* PFFFFFT*

Let's say he wants to just do secure file transfers on another network other
than the one he's on. I would like to shape some traffic in my case and use
the 2nd NIC's to have a file sharing / printer network. This network would
be on a switch to itself for many of things, such as using SNMP in a secured
network that doesn't traverse other data; this would limit anyone sniffing
out data that is being transferred over the main user network.





A network isn't the machines / OSes that are on it. It's the network.

You want to build your network(s) first then put your machines on it.

Crazy Example



((INTERNET)) -to- (FIREWALL)) -to- ((DMZ)) -to- ((ROUTER)) -to-

(SWITCH 01)

192.168.1.0/24

(SWITCH 02)

10.0.0.0/24

(SWITCH 03)

10.0.10.0/24

And so on. Each of these switches will be a network to them self:

I don't get what you're getting at.

Yes, sometimes two NICs are needed. In your case, an argument could be made
that using two NICs isn't secure, because that server could potentially act
as a bridge between two different security zones.

And the OP in question doesn't want to do what you stated, so I don't see
your point.

Matt Gibson - GSEC

"Mr. Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>* PFFFFFT*
>
> Let's say he wants to just do secure file transfers on another network
> other than the one he's on. I would like to shape some traffic in my case
> and use the 2nd NIC's to have a file sharing / printer network. This
> network would be on a switch to itself for many of things, such as using
> SNMP in a secured network that doesn't traverse other data; this would
> limit anyone sniffing out data that is being transferred over the main
> user network.
>
>
>
>
>
> A network isn't the machines / OSes that are on it. It's the network.
>
> You want to build your network(s) first then put your machines on it.
>
> Crazy Example
>
>
>
> ((INTERNET)) -to- (FIREWALL)) -to- ((DMZ)) -to- ((ROUTER)) -to-
>
> (SWITCH 01)
>
> 192.168.1.0/24
>
> (SWITCH 02)
>
> 10.0.0.0/24
>
> (SWITCH 03)
>
> 10.0.10.0/24
>
> And so on. Each of these switches will be a network to them self:
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't answer the posts on what they might want to. I try to answer based
on what is best for what they a specifically doing. Yes, there are
situations when multiple NIC are legitiment, but in my experience in these
group my rough guess is that only about 10% of the "multi-Nic" questions
have to do with legitiment situations for do doing such.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

"Mr. Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> * PFFFFFT*
>
> Let's say he wants to just do secure file transfers on another network
other
> than the one he's on. I would like to shape some traffic in my case and
use
> the 2nd NIC's to have a file sharing / printer network. This network
would
> be on a switch to itself for many of things, such as using SNMP in a
secured
> network that doesn't traverse other data; this would limit anyone sniffing
> out data that is being transferred over the main user network.
>
>
>
>
>
> A network isn't the machines / OSes that are on it. It's the network.
>
> You want to build your network(s) first then put your machines on it.
>
> Crazy Example
>
>
>
> ((INTERNET)) -to- (FIREWALL)) -to- ((DMZ)) -to- ((ROUTER)) -to-
>
> (SWITCH 01)
>
> 192.168.1.0/24
>
> (SWITCH 02)
>
> 10.0.0.0/24
>
> (SWITCH 03)
>
> 10.0.10.0/24
>
> And so on. Each of these switches will be a network to them self:
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your help. Just so you know the only reason we were doing this
is to replicate data between the servers and not affect the rest of our
network with the overhead. So we were setting up batch files to copy from
the production server to the test and backup server via IP on the second nic
not by Server name. Where what we noticed is, a specific application that
runs on the production server was impacted by slow response time, and once we
disconnected the cable between the two servers, everything was running at
optimal speeds. So from the first post after my original, do you all agree
that running these with a Switch between them rather than a cross over would
change the response issue or no?

Thanks again,

Jeremey

"Phillip Windell" wrote:

> I don't answer the posts on what they might want to. I try to answer based
> on what is best for what they a specifically doing. Yes, there are
> situations when multiple NIC are legitiment, but in my experience in these
> group my rough guess is that only about 10% of the "multi-Nic" questions
> have to do with legitiment situations for do doing such.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
> "Mr. Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > * PFFFFFT*
> >
> > Let's say he wants to just do secure file transfers on another network
> other
> > than the one he's on. I would like to shape some traffic in my case and
> use
> > the 2nd NIC's to have a file sharing / printer network. This network
> would
> > be on a switch to itself for many of things, such as using SNMP in a
> secured
> > network that doesn't traverse other data; this would limit anyone sniffing
> > out data that is being transferred over the main user network.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A network isn't the machines / OSes that are on it. It's the network.
> >
> > You want to build your network(s) first then put your machines on it.
> >
> > Crazy Example
> >
> >
> >
> > ((INTERNET)) -to- (FIREWALL)) -to- ((DMZ)) -to- ((ROUTER)) -to-
> >
> > (SWITCH 01)
> >
> > 192.168.1.0/24
> >
> > (SWITCH 02)
> >
> > 10.0.0.0/24
> >
> > (SWITCH 03)
> >
> > 10.0.10.0/24
> >
> > And so on. Each of these switches will be a network to them self:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>