Affordable 2.5GbE device with port stacking capability (or possibly limited)?
Affordable 2.5GbE device with port stacking capability (or possibly limited)?
I'm organizing an unraid plex server setup. The components include an i5-8400 processor, 16GB RAM, 500GB NVMe cache, and 6 x 8TB drives with parity. The only available port is a single 1GB Ethernet connection, which seems insufficient. I'm considering 2-3 4K streams at the same time while still needing to handle file operations like backing up personal computers. I have Wi-Fi 6 devices nearby and want the laptop to achieve optimal transfer speeds to the server. My Netgear Nighthawk RAXE500 has a single 2.5GBE port plus four 1GBE ports, supporting link aggregation on two of them. Currently, my cable modem is connected to the 2.5GbE port because it supports it, but I have gigabit internet speeds. I’m unsure if gigabit will be adequate for my requirements. Should I invest in a managed 2.5GbE switch with link aggregation? Or should I keep the modem in the 2.5GbE port and connect the server via a 2.5GbE network card through the router using two gigabit links? Also, I’m not sure what transfer speeds can realistically come from six 7200RPM 8TB drives in a parity pool. Any guidance or insights would be greatly appreciated.
I believe one gbe card is more than enough for a few 4k streams and backing up several systems. I plan to use a firmware-based setup. Link aggregation isn’t necessary unless you need quicker file transfers across multiple ports—smb multichannel would handle that better. Unraid usually lags, so you won’t see significant gains beyond a single drive at around 200mB/s.
Using plex and a file server together on the same device is one scenario where I rely on LACP. Neither application demands a full 1 Gbps, but you still want more bandwidth or separate network cards for each service to prevent streaming issues in plex. LACP is generally easier than binding to specific NICs, and it handles bandwidth allocation flexibly. As for overanalyzing @Some Call Me Tim... yes, you're right. You can buy a budget PCI-E dual port gigabit card from a server for around $20 and simply apply LACP through Unraid to your existing router. The extra switch in between will only complicate things.
I wouldn't rely on lacp when there are multiple ports; I'd use smb3 multichannel instead. That way one client can achieve over 1GbE speeds without needing any switch setup. I'll start with 1GbE first—it should work well and be simple to expand later.
It works well except for the Plex setup on the same box. SMB Multichannel doesn’t cooperate when other bandwidth-heavy services are stuck on one adapter instead of another (long story about discovering this). Additionally, the router already supports LACP on its ports, so no switch setup is needed—just connect two NICs in Unraid.
A nas offers superior performance compared to a 2.5GbE port versus a modem, especially given the limited 1GbE connection available. The switch here ensures no device exceeds the 1GbE limit since none of them have higher speeds. With a 2.5GbE link, you could support two clients using 1GbE each while still retaining extra bandwidth, whereas a 2x1GbE setup would be fully utilized.
The issue I'm facing stems from already having a switch setup. I own two NVIDIA Shields, an Xbox, my PC, and another Wi-Fi access point. Including the server adds complexity. If I enable LACP on the router, should I use the 2.5GB as an uplink to the switch? Since I can connect my PC to the router—where most large file transfers start—I’m considering sticking with my current configuration and testing it out. Thanks for your insights; the discussion is clarifying things.
The issue with LACP seems to stem from a basic switch design. I own an MS510TXPP that only supports one hash mode. I was attempting to implement LACP for my router in anticipation of Gigabit FTTP and 5G balancing (just for fun). During testing with multiple LAN clients using iperf3, the switch consistently directed both devices to the same port on the router. Even when ports changed, all traffic remained on one port. I managed to reduce this effect by requiring the router to handle hashing for outgoing traffic—something needed for high-speed links—but there was no solution when routing back from the switch to the router. This limitation is entirely due to the switch's capabilities. It's ironic because I purchased the MS510TXPP specifically to bypass such problems and ensure my NAS could operate at 10Gbps without contention on the LAN. I never thought I'd need more than 1Gbps on the router.