One Server, Two Networks

Hi all,

Please forgive the newbieness of the question.......

A Scenario
************
In our computer room are twenty Windows 2003 servers. They each
contain two NICs, but only 'NIC1' is in use on any server.

At present, each NIC is connected to a switch that is administered by
an external IT organisation. Our *in*ternal IT department is about
to install a switch of their own, and the plan is to connect 'NIC2' on
every server to this new switch.


A Desired Outcome?
***********************
The theory is that the 20 servers will communicate with *each other*
faster through the "internal" switch. But they'll still be able to
communicate with the other stuff that the "external" switch provides.


The Question....
*******************
........is this: when any of the 20 servers wish to talk to each
other, how can they be *forced* to use the "internal" switch? Or to
put it another way, what's preventing them from sending packets to
each other via the longer path?


Many thanks in advance,

Jason Paris

Hello (E-Mail Removed),

Multihoming servers with different ip addresses is a not good idea, this
can/will create problems especially on domain controllers.

Depending on the hardware you can team 2 NIC's, will create a Virtual NIC,
and configure them for failover or load balancing, HP for example has special
teaming software for it's servers.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm


> Hi all,
>
> Please forgive the newbieness of the question.......
>
> A Scenario
> ************
> In our computer room are twenty Windows 2003 servers. They each
> contain two NICs, but only 'NIC1' is in use on any server.
> At present, each NIC is connected to a switch that is administered by
> an external IT organisation. Our *in*ternal IT department is about
> to install a switch of their own, and the plan is to connect 'NIC2' on
> every server to this new switch.
>
> A Desired Outcome?
> ***********************
> The theory is that the 20 servers will communicate with *each other*
> faster through the "internal" switch. But they'll still be able to
> communicate with the other stuff that the "external" switch provides.
> The Question....
> *******************
> .......is this: when any of the 20 servers wish to talk to each
> other, how can they be *forced* to use the "internal" switch? Or to
> put it another way, what's preventing them from sending packets to
> each other via the longer path?
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Jason Paris
>

> A Desired Outcome?
> ***********************
> The theory is that the 20 servers will communicate with *each other*
> faster through the "internal" switch.

The theory is wrong.
The whole idea is resting on a miconception.

No one is using hubs anymore.
Everyone uses Switches.
Switches create "virtual circuits" between each pair of hosts that
communicate through the switch.
Hubs "share" bandwidth across ports,...Switches "dedicate" full bandwidth to
each port. So you are most likely envisioning a "bandwith problem" that
just simply doesn't exist and is not likely to exist any time soon.

> The Question....
> *******************
> .......is this: when any of the 20 servers wish to talk to each
> other, how can they be *forced* to use the "internal" switch?

They won't.
You will just create a mess.
You also have to consider what really happens at the servers,...most often
they spend most of their time "talking" to the Clients,...not each other
anyway.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1e8b3bae-29c3-4d0d-bd59-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
[snipped]
>
> A Desired Outcome?
> ***********************
> The theory is that the 20 servers will communicate with *each other*
> faster through the "internal" switch. But they'll still be able to
> communicate with the other stuff that the "external" switch provides.
>
[snipped]


I must agree with Phillip and Meinolf. This is NOT a good idea, especially
if they are DCs. Expect numerous issues if you try it. You either should
team the NICs and choose only one switch, or just keep them unteamed and
choose one switch or the other.

--
Ace

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

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSA Messaging, MCT
Microsoft Certified Trainer
(E-Mail Removed)

For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please
check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.