Linking 2 computers with 2 networks.

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by pawihte, Apr 6, 2009.

  1. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via their
    built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?

    The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet
    connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    connection between the two computers, while linking to the rest
    of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
     
    pawihte, Apr 6, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "pawihte" <> wrote in message
    news:grd0q8$tfv$...
    > I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a conflict if
    > I link two computers with a crossover cable via their built-in Gb ports,
    > and at the same time connect them both to a 100 Mbps switch using PCI
    > 10/100 NICs?
    >
    > The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet connection
    > with other computers. The aim is to have a fast connection between the two
    > computers, while linking to the rest of the network at a more sedate 100
    > Mbps.
    >



    No problem at all, if you know what you're doing.
    Just specify the appropriate protocols to be used by each connection.



    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
     
    Colon Terminus, Apr 6, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pawihte

    why? Guest

    On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:11:24 +0530, pawihte wrote:

    >I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via their
    >built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?


    You could always replace the 100Mbps switch with a 1000Mbps switch and
    avoid the issue all together.

    >The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet


    Especially as you still want sharing / internet access.

    >connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >connection between the two computers, while linking to the rest
    >of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.


    So you are already maxing out the 100Mbps link on the switch between
    those 2 PC's?

    You are more likely not going to be able to push enough traffic out of 1
    GbE port.

    Oh and Yes, you should set up static IP addresses for the 2 GbE NICs.
    Outside of the range already in use.

    A Linksys WRT54G , using VLANs and a couple of Intel Pro/1000 NICs which
    have VLANs in thier drivers might also work. I haven't tested it yet,
    then agin I want to setup NIC teams now that I have 4 INtel NICs.

    Me
     
    why?, Apr 6, 2009
    #3
  4. pawihte

    why? Guest

    On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:12:27 GMT, why? wrote:

    >
    >On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:11:24 +0530, pawihte wrote:
    >
    >>I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >>conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via their
    >>built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >>100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?

    >
    >You could always replace the 100Mbps switch with a 1000Mbps switch and
    >avoid the issue all together.
    >
    >>The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet

    >
    >Especially as you still want sharing / internet access.
    >
    >>connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>connection between the two computers, while linking to the rest
    >>of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.

    >
    >So you are already maxing out the 100Mbps link on the switch between
    >those 2 PC's?
    >
    >You are more likely not going to be able to push enough traffic out of 1
    >GbE port.
    >
    >Oh and Yes, you should set up static IP addresses for the 2 GbE NICs.
    >Outside of the range already in use.
    >
    >A Linksys WRT54G , using VLANs and a couple of Intel Pro/1000 NICs which


    Except for the bit with the wrong router name :) that was the 10/100
    DD-WRT and VLANs.

    Most likely I meant something else like 1 off the GbE routers, but can't
    remember yet.

    Me
     
    why?, Apr 6, 2009
    #4
  5. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    why? wrote:
    > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:11:24 +0530, pawihte wrote:
    >
    >> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >> their
    >> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?

    >
    > You could always replace the 100Mbps switch with a 1000Mbps
    > switch and
    > avoid the issue all together.
    >
    >> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet

    >
    > Especially as you still want sharing / internet access.
    >
    >> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >> rest
    >> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.

    >
    > So you are already maxing out the 100Mbps link on the switch
    > between
    > those 2 PC's?
    >
    > You are more likely not going to be able to push enough traffic
    > out
    > of 1 GbE port.
    >
    > Oh and Yes, you should set up static IP addresses for the 2 GbE
    > NICs.
    > Outside of the range already in use.
    >
    > A Linksys WRT54G , using VLANs and a couple of Intel Pro/1000
    > NICs
    > which have VLANs in thier drivers might also work. I haven't
    > tested
    > it yet, then agin I want to setup NIC teams now that I have 4
    > INtel
    > NICs.
    >


    Thanks for the reply. I'll lump my reply here instead of
    interleaving it with your post.

    I understand that it will be technically simpler to have an
    all-Gb network. But I already have an existing network of 8
    computers using two 8-port 10/100 Mbps switches and CAT5 cable.
    The idea is to avoid having to invest in an expensive 16-port
    1000 Mbps switch and new cabling. Although the existing 8
    computers all have GbE ports, they don't really need to connect
    at Gb speed either among themselves or with the two new
    computers. The network is used mainly for internet sharing and
    infrequent transfer of relatively small files. OTOH, the two new
    computers will frequently exchange large files, often of multi-GB
    sizes. Am I on the right track?

    I understand that I'll have to assign unique static IP addresses,
    and different ones for the two ports on a single computer. My
    main concern was whether connecting two computers with two
    concurrent networks will form an unstable loop. I can now proceed
    with confidence. Thanks again.
     
    pawihte, Apr 6, 2009
    #5
  6. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    Colon Terminus wrote:
    > "pawihte" <> wrote in message
    > news:grd0q8$tfv$...
    >> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >> their
    >> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >> 100
    >> Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>
    >> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet
    >> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >> rest of
    >> the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>

    >
    >
    > No problem at all, if you know what you're doing.
    > Just specify the appropriate protocols to be used by each
    > connection.


    Thanks for your interest and for the assurance. You've put my
    mind at ease. More details in my reply to why?'s post.
     
    pawihte, Apr 6, 2009
    #6
  7. pawihte

    RickMerrill Guest

    pawihte wrote:
    > why? wrote:
    >> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:11:24 +0530, pawihte wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>> their
    >>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?

    >> You could always replace the 100Mbps switch with a 1000Mbps
    >> switch and
    >> avoid the issue all together.
    >>
    >>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet

    >> Especially as you still want sharing / internet access.
    >>
    >>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>> rest
    >>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.

    >> So you are already maxing out the 100Mbps link on the switch
    >> between
    >> those 2 PC's?
    >>
    >> You are more likely not going to be able to push enough traffic
    >> out
    >> of 1 GbE port.
    >>
    >> Oh and Yes, you should set up static IP addresses for the 2 GbE
    >> NICs.
    >> Outside of the range already in use.
    >>
    >> A Linksys WRT54G , using VLANs and a couple of Intel Pro/1000
    >> NICs
    >> which have VLANs in thier drivers might also work. I haven't
    >> tested
    >> it yet, then agin I want to setup NIC teams now that I have 4
    >> INtel
    >> NICs.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for the reply. I'll lump my reply here instead of
    > interleaving it with your post.
    >
    > I understand that it will be technically simpler to have an
    > all-Gb network. But I already have an existing network of 8
    > computers using two 8-port 10/100 Mbps switches and CAT5 cable.
    > The idea is to avoid having to invest in an expensive 16-port
    > 1000 Mbps switch and new cabling. Although the existing 8
    > computers all have GbE ports, they don't really need to connect
    > at Gb speed either among themselves or with the two new
    > computers. The network is used mainly for internet sharing and
    > infrequent transfer of relatively small files. OTOH, the two new
    > computers will frequently exchange large files, often of multi-GB
    > sizes. Am I on the right track?
    >
    > I understand that I'll have to assign unique static IP addresses,
    > and different ones for the two ports on a single computer. My
    > main concern was whether connecting two computers with two
    > concurrent networks will form an unstable loop. I can now proceed
    > with confidence. Thanks again.
    >
    >


    A 1Gb switch will come with 10/100/1000 autodetect so you can plug all
    into it. Furthermore, since it's a switch, you will not be broadcasting
    all to all as a hub does. You should see better performance all around.
    Move up to cat6 for the 1Gb stuff.

    If you have two networks the will have to be on different ip sets...
     
    RickMerrill, Apr 6, 2009
    #7
  8. pawihte

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    pawihte wrote:
    > I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    > conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via their
    > built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    > 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >
    > The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet
    > connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    > connection between the two computers, while linking to the rest
    > of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >
    >


    Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch. I have to say
    though it seems to me you are looking for a solution to a problem that
    doesn't really exist.
     
    Desk Rabbit, Apr 6, 2009
    #8
  9. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    Desk Rabbit wrote:
    > pawihte wrote:
    >> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >> their
    >> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>
    >> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet
    >> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >> rest
    >> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.


    If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will - my
    approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive, than
    setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already exists
    (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up except
    one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.

    I have to say
    > though it seems to me you are looking for a solution to a
    > problem that
    > doesn't really exist.


    My question was whether there *could* be a problem. Seems not.
    Thanks for your interest.
     
    pawihte, Apr 6, 2009
    #9
  10. pawihte

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    pawihte wrote:
    > Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >> pawihte wrote:
    >>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>> their
    >>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>
    >>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet
    >>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>> rest
    >>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.

    >
    > If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will - my
    > approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive, than
    > setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already exists
    > (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up except
    > one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.


    Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are doing and are
    just blindly following advice from complete strangers that know little
    about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.
     
    Desk Rabbit, Apr 7, 2009
    #10
  11. pawihte

    Aardvark Guest

    On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:00:52 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:

    > Patently obvious


    Spot the redundant word.



    --
    The month of March in this year of 2009 sees the centenary of the laying
    of the keel of the most famous (or infamous) ocean liner of all time, RMS
    Titanic, at Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast.
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic>
     
    Aardvark, Apr 7, 2009
    #11
  12. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    Desk Rabbit wrote:
    > pawihte wrote:
    >> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be
    >>>> a
    >>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>>> their
    >>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to
    >>>> a
    >>>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>>
    >>>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an
    >>>> internet
    >>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>>> rest
    >>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.

    >>
    >> If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will - my
    >> approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive, than
    >> setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already
    >> exists
    >> (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up
    >> except
    >> one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.

    >
    > Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are doing
    > and
    > are just blindly following advice from complete strangers that
    > know
    > little about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.


    If I knew everything I needed to know, I wouldn't have asked
    here. And you, with your great wisdom and expertise, did not
    answer my question or offer an explanation as to why my scheme
    wouldn't work. If it works, I'd be saving a significant amount of
    time and money. If it doesn't, I wouldn't have lost anything. You
    fall into the same category as those whose catch-all solution for
    every problem is "Format C:" or "Google it".
     
    pawihte, Apr 7, 2009
    #12
  13. pawihte

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    pawihte wrote:
    > Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >> pawihte wrote:
    >>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>>>> their
    >>>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an
    >>>>> internet
    >>>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>>>> rest
    >>>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.
    >>> If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will - my
    >>> approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive, than
    >>> setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already
    >>> exists
    >>> (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up
    >>> except
    >>> one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.

    >> Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are doing
    >> and
    >> are just blindly following advice from complete strangers that
    >> know
    >> little about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.

    >
    > If I knew everything I needed to know, I wouldn't have asked
    > here. And you, with your great wisdom and expertise, did not
    > answer my question or offer an explanation as to why my scheme
    > wouldn't work.


    Yes I did offer you an opinion and a suggestion - use a single Gb switch.

    I can give you a full explanation of why your scheme will be difficult
    and hard to implement. But to save time and space (And because you are
    getting my valuable time and expertise for free) I'll just say, ask
    yourself (Or better still a real living breathing expert) how are these
    two machines supposed to know to route file transfers down one network
    card and Internet traffic down another when they will both be visible on
    both networks?
     
    Desk Rabbit, Apr 7, 2009
    #13
  14. pawihte

    why? Guest

    On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:04:29 +0530, pawihte wrote:

    >why? wrote:
    >> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:11:24 +0530, pawihte wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be a
    >>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>> their
    >>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to a
    >>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?

    >>
    >> You could always replace the 100Mbps switch with a 1000Mbps
    >> switch and
    >> avoid the issue all together.
    >>
    >>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an internet

    >>
    >> Especially as you still want sharing / internet access.
    >>
    >>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>> rest
    >>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.

    >>
    >> So you are already maxing out the 100Mbps link on the switch
    >> between
    >> those 2 PC's?


    Depending on your existing NIC PCI / PCIe x1 or x4 there are limits on
    how much you can push through a PCI 33/66/133 bus / PCIe x1. The last 2
    max out at about 250Mbps for 1 transfer (2 transfers can reach 480Mbps).
    A PCIe x4 AFAIK (will test when card arrives) should be multiple 250Mbps
    if the disk / pc can get the data to the NIC fast enough.

    >> You are more likely not going to be able to push enough traffic
    >> out
    >> of 1 GbE port.


    <snip>

    >> A Linksys WRT54G , using VLANs and a couple of Intel Pro/1000
    >> NICs


    That would have been this model.... Linksys/Cisco
    Simultaneous Dual-N Band Wireless Router
    (WRT610N) with DD-WRT , confirm there is a version for it)

    >> which have VLANs in thier drivers might also work. I haven't
    >> tested
    >> it yet, then agin I want to setup NIC teams now that I have 4
    >> INtel
    >> NICs.
    >>

    >
    >Thanks for the reply. I'll lump my reply here instead of
    >interleaving it with your post.


    Which makes going back and checking comments / reply ... oh well.

    >I understand that it will be technically simpler to have an
    >all-Gb network. But I already have an existing network of 8
    >computers using two 8-port 10/100 Mbps switches and CAT5 cable.
    >The idea is to avoid having to invest in an expensive 16-port


    They are expensive?

    YOu may also notice on the SOHO models, you can get 2 or 3 PCs running
    max out on data transfers but a 4th or 5th PC may not do so well. Unless
    you are looking at more HP/Cisco non blocking wirespeed.

    >1000 Mbps switch and new cabling. Although the existing 8


    New cabling? Unless you are running over full distance Cat5 should cope
    with 1000Mbps, even if you can hit the link at over 40/50%.

    <snip>
    >infrequent transfer of relatively small files. OTOH, the two new
    >computers will frequently exchange large files, often of multi-GB


    100GB sort of stuff :)

    >sizes. Am I on the right track?


    Yes.

    >I understand that I'll have to assign unique static IP addresses,
    >and different ones for the two ports on a single computer. My
    >main concern was whether connecting two computers with two
    >concurrent networks will form an unstable loop. I can now proceed


    Loops are usually when a connection / dual redundancy team collapses and
    the same IP appears on 2 interfaces with the same MAC address.

    In this case you have 2 distinct connections, IPs that aren't part of
    your router table and different gateways.

    The 2 things I can think of is the faster link may change the metric
    settings and decide it's the default route. You may have to force the
    metric to be lower and set a static route between the 2 PCs instead of
    allowing automatic detection.

    >with confidence. Thanks again.


    YW.

    Now that my spare nics have arrived, it's something to try. Interesting
    issue.

    Me
     
    why?, Apr 8, 2009
    #14
  15. pawihte

    why? Guest

    On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:56:33 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:

    >pawihte wrote:
    >> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>>>>> their
    >>>>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an
    >>>>>> internet
    >>>>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>>>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>>>>> rest
    >>>>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.
    >>>> If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will - my
    >>>> approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive, than
    >>>> setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already
    >>>> exists
    >>>> (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up
    >>>> except
    >>>> one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.
    >>> Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are doing
    >>> and
    >>> are just blindly following advice from complete strangers that
    >>> know
    >>> little about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.

    >>
    >> If I knew everything I needed to know, I wouldn't have asked
    >> here. And you, with your great wisdom and expertise, did not
    >> answer my question or offer an explanation as to why my scheme
    >> wouldn't work.

    >
    >Yes I did offer you an opinion and a suggestion - use a single Gb switch.
    >
    >I can give you a full explanation of why your scheme will be difficult
    >and hard to implement. But to save time and space (And because you are
    >getting my valuable time and expertise for free) I'll just say, ask
    >yourself (Or better still a real living breathing expert) how are these
    >two machines supposed to know to route file transfers down one network
    >card and Internet traffic down another when they will both be visible on
    >both networks?


    Part of it is they both shouldn't be visible on both networks, what ever
    you mean. Unless you have a real router (non soho) or setting vlans
    (some soho routers do, so do some intel nic drivers) 2 lots of addresses
    don't appear on both networks. Basically it's 2 seperate networks, i.e.
    if you unplugged the 192.168 link on 1 PC you couldn't retain the
    internet link over it's 10.1.x.x to the other 10.x.x.x to 192.168.x.x
    unless routing was setup on the PC. Then that's where one gets into
    trouble. It's not possible to route between 192.168/10.1 on both PCs, at
    the same time in case of a failure that's a routing loop as there are 2
    routes both to 192.168 :)

    You can try this yourself quite easily.

    Internet router port 1,2 connects to a switch port 1,2 then a pc in
    switch port 3.


    At a rough guess.
    PC1
    nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    nic2 static 10.1.1.1/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.1

    PC2
    nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    nic2 static 10.1.1.2/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.2

    With just 1 original nic the PC self address is metric 1 , going out to
    router is metric 10, adding another nic would make it's metric 20.

    Or at least the faster interface doesn't become the lower metric, hence
    default.

    Watch the default gw doesn't change to 10.1.1.x.

    Put in each host file

    pc1backup 10.1.1.1
    pc2backup 10.1.1.2

    That's how you refer to the new IPs/link.

    Something I may try today, just for fun.

    Me
     
    why?, Apr 8, 2009
    #15
  16. pawihte

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    why? wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:56:33 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >
    >> pawihte wrote:
    >>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will there be
    >>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable via
    >>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them both to
    >>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an
    >>>>>>> internet
    >>>>>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>>>>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>>>>>> rest
    >>>>>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.
    >>>>> If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will - my
    >>>>> approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive, than
    >>>>> setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already
    >>>>> exists
    >>>>> (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up
    >>>>> except
    >>>>> one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.
    >>>> Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are doing
    >>>> and
    >>>> are just blindly following advice from complete strangers that
    >>>> know
    >>>> little about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.
    >>> If I knew everything I needed to know, I wouldn't have asked
    >>> here. And you, with your great wisdom and expertise, did not
    >>> answer my question or offer an explanation as to why my scheme
    >>> wouldn't work.

    >> Yes I did offer you an opinion and a suggestion - use a single Gb switch.
    >>
    >> I can give you a full explanation of why your scheme will be difficult
    >> and hard to implement. But to save time and space (And because you are
    >> getting my valuable time and expertise for free) I'll just say, ask
    >> yourself (Or better still a real living breathing expert) how are these
    >> two machines supposed to know to route file transfers down one network
    >> card and Internet traffic down another when they will both be visible on
    >> both networks?

    >
    > Part of it is they both shouldn't be visible on both networks, what ever
    > you mean. Unless you have a real router (non soho) or setting vlans
    > (some soho routers do, so do some intel nic drivers) 2 lots of addresses
    > don't appear on both networks. Basically it's 2 seperate networks, i.e.
    > if you unplugged the 192.168 link on 1 PC you couldn't retain the
    > internet link over it's 10.1.x.x to the other 10.x.x.x to 192.168.x.x
    > unless routing was setup on the PC. Then that's where one gets into
    > trouble. It's not possible to route between 192.168/10.1 on both PCs, at
    > the same time in case of a failure that's a routing loop as there are 2
    > routes both to 192.168 :)
    >
    > You can try this yourself quite easily.
    >
    > Internet router port 1,2 connects to a switch port 1,2 then a pc in
    > switch port 3.
    >
    >
    > At a rough guess.
    > PC1
    > nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    > nic2 static 10.1.1.1/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.1
    >
    > PC2
    > nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    > nic2 static 10.1.1.2/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.2
    >
    > With just 1 original nic the PC self address is metric 1 , going out to
    > router is metric 10, adding another nic would make it's metric 20.
    >
    > Or at least the faster interface doesn't become the lower metric, hence
    > default.
    >
    > Watch the default gw doesn't change to 10.1.1.x.
    >
    > Put in each host file
    >
    > pc1backup 10.1.1.1
    > pc2backup 10.1.1.2
    >
    > That's how you refer to the new IPs/link.
    >
    > Something I may try today, just for fun.
    >
    > Me


    Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing the switch
    with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can create, manage
    and troubleshoot quite easily. ;-)
     
    Desk Rabbit, Apr 9, 2009
    #16
  17. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    Desk Rabbit wrote:
    > why? wrote:
    >> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:56:33 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>
    >>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>>>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will
    >>>>>>>> there be
    >>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable
    >>>>>>>> via
    >>>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them
    >>>>>>>> both to
    >>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an
    >>>>>>>> internet
    >>>>>>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a
    >>>>>>>> fast
    >>>>>>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to
    >>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>> rest
    >>>>>>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.
    >>>>>> If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will -
    >>>>>> my
    >>>>>> approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive,
    >>>>>> than
    >>>>>> setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already
    >>>>>> exists
    >>>>>> (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up
    >>>>>> except
    >>>>>> one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.
    >>>>> Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are
    >>>>> doing
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> are just blindly following advice from complete strangers
    >>>>> that
    >>>>> know
    >>>>> little about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.
    >>>> If I knew everything I needed to know, I wouldn't have asked
    >>>> here. And you, with your great wisdom and expertise, did not
    >>>> answer my question or offer an explanation as to why my
    >>>> scheme
    >>>> wouldn't work.
    >>> Yes I did offer you an opinion and a suggestion - use a
    >>> single Gb
    >>> switch. I can give you a full explanation of why your scheme
    >>> will be
    >>> difficult and hard to implement. But to save time and space
    >>> (And
    >>> because you are getting my valuable time and expertise for
    >>> free)
    >>> I'll just say, ask yourself (Or better still a real living
    >>> breathing expert) how are these two machines supposed to know
    >>> to
    >>> route file transfers down one network card and Internet
    >>> traffic
    >>> down another when they will both be visible on both networks?

    >>
    >> Part of it is they both shouldn't be visible on both networks,
    >> what
    >> ever you mean. Unless you have a real router (non soho) or
    >> setting
    >> vlans (some soho routers do, so do some intel nic drivers) 2
    >> lots of
    >> addresses don't appear on both networks. Basically it's 2
    >> seperate
    >> networks, i.e. if you unplugged the 192.168 link on 1 PC you
    >> couldn't retain the internet link over it's 10.1.x.x to the
    >> other
    >> 10.x.x.x to 192.168.x.x unless routing was setup on the PC.
    >> Then
    >> that's where one gets into trouble. It's not possible to route
    >> between 192.168/10.1 on both PCs, at the same time in case of
    >> a
    >> failure that's a routing loop as there are 2 routes both to
    >> 192.168
    >> :) You can try this yourself quite easily.
    >>
    >> Internet router port 1,2 connects to a switch port 1,2 then a
    >> pc in
    >> switch port 3.
    >>
    >>
    >> At a rough guess.
    >> PC1
    >> nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    >> nic2 static 10.1.1.1/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.1
    >>
    >> PC2
    >> nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    >> nic2 static 10.1.1.2/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.2
    >>
    >> With just 1 original nic the PC self address is metric 1 ,
    >> going out
    >> to router is metric 10, adding another nic would make it's
    >> metric 20.
    >>
    >> Or at least the faster interface doesn't become the lower
    >> metric,
    >> hence default.
    >>
    >> Watch the default gw doesn't change to 10.1.1.x.
    >>
    >> Put in each host file
    >>
    >> pc1backup 10.1.1.1
    >> pc2backup 10.1.1.2
    >>
    >> That's how you refer to the new IPs/link.
    >>
    >> Something I may try today, just for fun.
    >>
    >> Me

    >
    > Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing the
    > switch
    > with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can create,
    > manage
    > and troubleshoot quite easily. ;-)


    Despite your sarcastic reply, what why? said is not all that
    difficult to grasp. No one is born an expert in anything and most
    people are quite capable of expanding their knowledge, especially
    with some helpful hints. And many of us enjoy the learning
    process instead of choosing the easiest path. I taught myself my
    current profession completely unaided and was chosen to receive
    one of the nation's highest awards for pioneering work in science
    and technology. (I declined for ethical reasons).

    I have tried out part of my scheme with the four computers I have
    at home and have no problem connecting two computers at the same
    time at 100 Mbps and 1 Gb/s. Copying large files chosen at random
    to and from undefragged drives, I get average transfer speeds of
    38-47 MB/s with the Gb LAN and about 8.5 MB/s without. However,
    *sometimes* the two Gb computers have trouble seeing the other
    two and connecting to the internet while both connections are
    enabled. I hope to be able to solve this using why?'s hints and
    by doing my own investigations.
     
    pawihte, Apr 9, 2009
    #17
  18. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    why? wrote:
    > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:04:29 +0530, pawihte wrote:
    >
    >> why? wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:11:24 +0530, pawihte wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a fast
    >>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to the
    >>>> rest
    >>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>
    >>> So you are already maxing out the 100Mbps link on the switch
    >>> between
    >>> those 2 PC's?

    >
    > Depending on your existing NIC PCI / PCIe x1 or x4 there are
    > limits on
    > how much you can push through a PCI 33/66/133 bus / PCIe x1.
    > The last
    > 2 max out at about 250Mbps for 1 transfer (2 transfers can
    > reach
    > 480Mbps). A PCIe x4 AFAIK (will test when card arrives) should
    > be
    > multiple 250Mbps if the disk / pc can get the data to the NIC
    > fast
    > enough.
    >
    >>> You are more likely not going to be able to push enough
    >>> traffic
    >>> out
    >>> of 1 GbE port.


    Yes, I know that there are limiting factors other than the max
    theoretical speed of the NICs. What I hope to get is something
    substantially faster than the 8 or so MB/s I now get with a 100
    Mb/s connection.

    >>>

    >>
    >> Thanks for the reply. I'll lump my reply here instead of
    >> interleaving it with your post.

    >
    > Which makes going back and checking comments / reply ... oh
    > well.
    >

    Sorry about that :)


    >> I understand that it will be technically simpler to have an
    >> all-Gb network. But I already have an existing network of 8
    >> computers using two 8-port 10/100 Mbps switches and CAT5
    >> cable.
    >> The idea is to avoid having to invest in an expensive 16-port

    >
    > They are expensive?
    >


    Relatively. Where I live, a 16-port 1000 Mbps switch costs more
    than the equivalent of $200 US.

    > YOu may also notice on the SOHO models, you can get 2 or 3 PCs
    > running
    > max out on data transfers but a 4th or 5th PC may not do so
    > well.
    > Unless you are looking at more HP/Cisco non blocking wirespeed.
    >
    >> 1000 Mbps switch and new cabling. Although the existing 8

    >
    > New cabling? Unless you are running over full distance Cat5
    > should
    > cope with 1000Mbps, even if you can hit the link at over
    > 40/50%.
    >

    I've done a test run with CAT5. Details in my reply to Mr.Rabbit.

    > <snip>
    >> infrequent transfer of relatively small files. OTOH, the two
    >> new
    >> computers will frequently exchange large files, often of
    >> multi-GB

    >
    > 100GB sort of stuff :)
    >

    Yeah. Mostly AVI files of >10GB each. Sometimes several of them
    in one go.

    >> sizes. Am I on the right track?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> I understand that I'll have to assign unique static IP
    >> addresses,
    >> and different ones for the two ports on a single computer. My
    >> main concern was whether connecting two computers with two
    >> concurrent networks will form an unstable loop. I can now
    >> proceed

    >
    > Loops are usually when a connection / dual redundancy team
    > collapses
    > and the same IP appears on 2 interfaces with the same MAC
    > address.
    >
    > In this case you have 2 distinct connections, IPs that aren't
    > part of
    > your router table and different gateways.
    >
    > The 2 things I can think of is the faster link may change the
    > metric
    > settings and decide it's the default route. You may have to
    > force the
    > metric to be lower and set a static route between the 2 PCs
    > instead of
    > allowing automatic detection.
    >

    I'll keep that in mind and do some more experimenting and
    research.

    >> with confidence. Thanks again.

    >
    > YW.
    >
    > Now that my spare nics have arrived, it's something to try.
    > Interesting issue.
    >
    > Me
     
    pawihte, Apr 9, 2009
    #18
  19. pawihte

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    pawihte wrote:
    > Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >> why? wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:56:33 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>>>>> pawihte wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will
    >>>>>>>>> there be
    >>>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable
    >>>>>>>>> via
    >>>>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them
    >>>>>>>>> both to
    >>>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>>> 100 Mbps switch using PCI 10/100 NICs?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> The switch will also be used for sharing files and an
    >>>>>>>>> internet
    >>>>>>>>> connection with other computers. The aim is to have a
    >>>>>>>>> fast
    >>>>>>>>> connection between the two computers, while linking to
    >>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> rest
    >>>>>>>>> of the network at a more sedate 100 Mbps.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Save yourself the hassle and upgrade to a Gb switch.
    >>>>>>> If it works - and the consensus seems to be that it will -
    >>>>>>> my
    >>>>>>> approach is much less of a hassle, and less expensive,
    >>>>>>> than
    >>>>>>> setting up a new Gb LAN because the 100 Mbps setup already
    >>>>>>> exists
    >>>>>>> (pls see my reply to the others). Nothing to buy or set up
    >>>>>>> except
    >>>>>>> one short run of CAT6 crossover cable.
    >>>>>> Patently obvious that you haven't got a clue what you are
    >>>>>> doing
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>> are just blindly following advice from complete strangers
    >>>>>> that
    >>>>>> know
    >>>>>> little about your setup. Ho-hum. Have fun.
    >>>>> If I knew everything I needed to know, I wouldn't have asked
    >>>>> here. And you, with your great wisdom and expertise, did not
    >>>>> answer my question or offer an explanation as to why my
    >>>>> scheme
    >>>>> wouldn't work.
    >>>> Yes I did offer you an opinion and a suggestion - use a
    >>>> single Gb
    >>>> switch. I can give you a full explanation of why your scheme
    >>>> will be
    >>>> difficult and hard to implement. But to save time and space
    >>>> (And
    >>>> because you are getting my valuable time and expertise for
    >>>> free)
    >>>> I'll just say, ask yourself (Or better still a real living
    >>>> breathing expert) how are these two machines supposed to know
    >>>> to
    >>>> route file transfers down one network card and Internet
    >>>> traffic
    >>>> down another when they will both be visible on both networks?
    >>> Part of it is they both shouldn't be visible on both networks,
    >>> what
    >>> ever you mean. Unless you have a real router (non soho) or
    >>> setting
    >>> vlans (some soho routers do, so do some intel nic drivers) 2
    >>> lots of
    >>> addresses don't appear on both networks. Basically it's 2
    >>> seperate
    >>> networks, i.e. if you unplugged the 192.168 link on 1 PC you
    >>> couldn't retain the internet link over it's 10.1.x.x to the
    >>> other
    >>> 10.x.x.x to 192.168.x.x unless routing was setup on the PC.
    >>> Then
    >>> that's where one gets into trouble. It's not possible to route
    >>> between 192.168/10.1 on both PCs, at the same time in case of
    >>> a
    >>> failure that's a routing loop as there are 2 routes both to
    >>> 192.168
    >>> :) You can try this yourself quite easily.
    >>>
    >>> Internet router port 1,2 connects to a switch port 1,2 then a
    >>> pc in
    >>> switch port 3.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> At a rough guess.
    >>> PC1
    >>> nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    >>> nic2 static 10.1.1.1/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.1
    >>>
    >>> PC2
    >>> nic1 default settings dhcp 192.168.x.x router link.
    >>> nic2 static 10.1.1.2/28 gw for 10.1.1.0 is same i/f 10.1.1.2
    >>>
    >>> With just 1 original nic the PC self address is metric 1 ,
    >>> going out
    >>> to router is metric 10, adding another nic would make it's
    >>> metric 20.
    >>>
    >>> Or at least the faster interface doesn't become the lower
    >>> metric,
    >>> hence default.
    >>>
    >>> Watch the default gw doesn't change to 10.1.1.x.
    >>>
    >>> Put in each host file
    >>>
    >>> pc1backup 10.1.1.1
    >>> pc2backup 10.1.1.2
    >>>
    >>> That's how you refer to the new IPs/link.
    >>>
    >>> Something I may try today, just for fun.
    >>>
    >>> Me

    >> Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing the
    >> switch
    >> with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can create,
    >> manage
    >> and troubleshoot quite easily. ;-)

    >
    > Despite your sarcastic reply, what why? said is not all that
    > difficult to grasp. No one is born an expert in anything and most
    > people are quite capable of expanding their knowledge, especially
    > with some helpful hints. And many of us enjoy the learning
    > process instead of choosing the easiest path.


    Couldn't agree more. Although monkey see, monkey do doesn't always teach
    you anything.

    > I taught myself my
    > current profession completely unaided and was chosen to receive
    > one of the nation's highest awards for pioneering work in science
    > and technology. (I declined for ethical reasons).


    Good for you. I chose to go down a certified instructor lead path
    coupled with real world experience.


    > I have tried out part of my scheme with the four computers I have
    > at home and have no problem connecting two computers at the same
    > time at 100 Mbps and 1 Gb/s. Copying large files chosen at random
    > to and from undefragged drives, I get average transfer speeds of
    > 38-47 MB/s with the Gb LAN and about 8.5 MB/s without. However,
    > *sometimes* the two Gb computers have trouble seeing the other
    > two and connecting to the internet while both connections are
    > enabled. I hope to be able to solve this using why?'s hints and
    > by doing my own investigations.
    >
    >

    And if you had installed a cheap 1Gb switch it would have just worked.
    That said if your time is cheap/valuless then there is no harm
    tinkering. I deal with business networks, tinkering and experimenting on
    live systems is not a option. Proven, reliable methods are generally
    preferred and prove cheaper in the long run.

    Have fun.
     
    Desk Rabbit, Apr 9, 2009
    #19
  20. pawihte

    pawihte Guest

    Desk Rabbit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>> Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing
    >>> the
    >>> switch
    >>> with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can
    >>> create,
    >>> manage
    >>> and troubleshoot quite easily. ;-)

    >>
    >> Despite your sarcastic reply, what why? said is not all that
    >> difficult to grasp. No one is born an expert in anything and
    >> most
    >> people are quite capable of expanding their knowledge,
    >> especially
    >> with some helpful hints. And many of us enjoy the learning
    >> process instead of choosing the easiest path.

    >
    > Couldn't agree more. Although monkey see, monkey do doesn't
    > always
    > teach you anything.


    You should talk. By your own admission, you choose to follow what
    others have established.

    >
    >> I taught myself my
    >> current profession completely unaided and was chosen to
    >> receive
    >> one of the nation's highest awards for pioneering work in
    >> science
    >> and technology. (I declined for ethical reasons).

    >
    > Good for you. I chose to go down a certified instructor lead
    > path
    > coupled with real world experience.
    >

    Good for *you*. Just don't expect everyone to follow the same
    path. I was plotting the course of the Apollo moon shots with an
    IBM mainframe and punch cards in the sixties as a college project
    at the age of 16. I just chose something other than becoming a
    computer geek.
    >
    >> I have tried out part of my scheme with the four computers I
    >> have
    >> at home and have no problem connecting two computers at the
    >> same
    >> time at 100 Mbps and 1 Gb/s. Copying large files chosen at
    >> random
    >> to and from undefragged drives, I get average transfer speeds
    >> of
    >> 38-47 MB/s with the Gb LAN and about 8.5 MB/s without.
    >> However,
    >> *sometimes* the two Gb computers have trouble seeing the other
    >> two and connecting to the internet while both connections are
    >> enabled. I hope to be able to solve this using why?'s hints
    >> and
    >> by doing my own investigations.
    >>
    >>

    > And if you had installed a cheap 1Gb switch it would have just
    > worked.


    I knew that and you don't have to repeat yourself. Not everyone
    enjoys always doing things the same way all the time. There's
    this thing called the satisfaction of finding alternative routes.

    > That said if your time is cheap/valuless then there is no harm
    > tinkering. I deal with business networks, tinkering and
    > experimenting
    > on live systems is not a option. Proven, reliable methods are
    > generally preferred and prove cheaper in the long run.
    >

    For the kind of work you do and the way you work, probably. But
    not for everyone. My time is as valuable as any successful
    professional's. If yours is so much more valuable, why are you
    wasting it on Usenet, typing sarcastic remarks and cryptic
    "answers" that no one asked for? Me, I don't consider spare time
    spent finding out alternative solutions wasted.

    Oh yes, I also often do things the "proven, reliable" way over a
    40-year career, but seldom without asking myself if there's at
    least a slightly better way - and there usually is. Maybe that's
    why every single company engineer I've met has asked to work for
    me, even at reduced pay.
     
    pawihte, Apr 9, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    579
    www.BradReese.Com
    Oct 16, 2006
  2. wwwired
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    497
    wwwired
    Oct 31, 2006
  3. wwwired
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    527
    usedcisco
    Nov 13, 2006
  4. squib1

    linking the computers

    squib1, Sep 7, 2007, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    572
    squib1
    Sep 7, 2007
  5. Dave S.

    Linking computers via router

    Dave S., Aug 9, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    419
    Dave S.
    Aug 9, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page