NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
NIC Bonding on ReadyNAS
Hi, is it possible to span a bonded interface on a ReadyNAS across two managed switches that have a LAG link between them - something like below. The idea being that devices on the left will use l...
Imho, this is is the easiest, cheapest, most efficient solution in your situation: https://i.imgur.com/BSD2u6r.png
No expensive hardware upgrade required, very easy to setup, and you won't get any significantly higher performance with a RN104 whatever other solution you use.
(Again, in my opinion)
I agree with StephenB. It's possible to use some trickery in order to get something "close" to what you're asking. But it's not going to behave like you're expecting. And it's trickery, it's not a "proper" solution.
You have to think of ingress traffic as well as egress traffic.
Having an IP for each "side" on the NAS and making sure that PCs from a "side" talks only to the relevant IP, is enough for ingress traffic. (Also, good practice is to have only one NIC with a default gateway).
But you can't determine which NIC will the NAS use for egress traffic.
If you really have only one PC on each side, what you could do is using two different subnets:
PC-A: 192.168.0.2/24 GW 192.168.0.1
NAS-eth0: 192.168.0.250/24 GW 192.168.0.1
NAS-eth1: 192.168.1.250/24
PC-B: 192.168.0.3/24 GW 192.168.0.1 + (secondary IP) 192.168.1.3./24
If you make sure that PC-B speaks to the NAS through the IP 192.168.1.250/24, and PC-A through 192.168.0.250/24, the NAS wiil speak to PC-B via 192.168.1.3/24 and to PC-A via 192.168.0.2/24 and you'll get what you're looking for.
PC-B does ARP to NAS-eth1 IP, get eth1 @MAC.
Switch-B knows this @MAC on port to NAS-eth1.
NAS replies to PC-B secondary IP, so via NAS-eth1.
Switch-B knows PC-B @MAC on port to PC-B.
PC-A does ARP to NAS-eth0 IP, get eth0 @MAC.
Switch-A knows this @MAC on port to NAS-eth0.
NAS replies to PC-A IP, so via NAS-eth0.
Switch-A knows PC-A @MAC on port to PC-A.
But it's a dirty solution.
Finally, as StephenB already said, the network is rarely the bottleneck for RN104... so whatever you do, it's probably not gonna improve anything.
I personally think that having a LAG between both GS108T and the RN104 connecting to ONE switch via a LAG is the easiest solution, and wouldn't provide noticibly less performance.
There would be other solutions with switches more expensive than GS108T (MLAG, stack, etc.), but it would cost more money than simply buying a more powerful NAS.
jak0lantash wrote:
You have to think of ingress traffic as well as egress traffic.
Exactly. And for most NAS there is more egress (e.g. more downloading), and that is what you can't easily control. You can fiddle with iptables inside the NAS - some people have gone that route to separate isci/VM traffic from normal share access.
But getting a faster NAS, and (if physically practical) consolidating the two GS108T into a single larger switch are better approaches. Then use LACP with the NAS if there are enough simultaneous users.
Or get a second NAS, and put one on each switch.
Imho, this is is the easiest, cheapest, most efficient solution in your situation: https://i.imgur.com/BSD2u6r.png
No expensive hardware upgrade required, very easy to setup, and you won't get any significantly higher performance with a RN104 whatever other solution you use.
(Again, in my opinion)
Thanks to all for your thoughts and suggestions, much appreciated. TimJ.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
