F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Networks Ensure direct network link setup and address firewall concerns for the La Jellyfish Fryer/Save 45k model.

Ensure direct network link setup and address firewall concerns for the La Jellyfish Fryer/Save 45k model.

Ensure direct network link setup and address firewall concerns for the La Jellyfish Fryer/Save 45k model.

C
chrisjo785
Member
196
12-27-2016, 09:10 PM
#1
They suggest a direct attached configuration works best overall. Using switches for most tasks is preferable. The alternative of making the server a switch and handling all data through that connection might raise firewall concerns, especially since this isn't a typical setup—you need to tailor it accordingly.
C
chrisjo785
12-27-2016, 09:10 PM #1

They suggest a direct attached configuration works best overall. Using switches for most tasks is preferable. The alternative of making the server a switch and handling all data through that connection might raise firewall concerns, especially since this isn't a typical setup—you need to tailor it accordingly.

C
Commando__
Senior Member
744
12-27-2016, 09:43 PM
#2
QSFP Switches aren't designed for a home setup and I'm unsure if they handle Ethernet well. I also attempted to link NICs on the server and use it as a gateway, but speeds dropped to 1Gbps, limiting file transfers. I'm thinking about revisiting this if a different method is available that avoids making the second box manage DNS or DHCP.
C
Commando__
12-27-2016, 09:43 PM #2

QSFP Switches aren't designed for a home setup and I'm unsure if they handle Ethernet well. I also attempted to link NICs on the server and use it as a gateway, but speeds dropped to 1Gbps, limiting file transfers. I'm thinking about revisiting this if a different method is available that avoids making the second box manage DNS or DHCP.

S
steel51
Member
205
12-31-2016, 12:44 PM
#3
It appears there might be an issue with the firewall configuration. You mentioned working with 10GbE connections and 1Gb uplinks without problems, but if it's solely the firewall, disabling it could resolve the issue. What operating system is the storage server using?
S
steel51
12-31-2016, 12:44 PM #3

It appears there might be an issue with the firewall configuration. You mentioned working with 10GbE connections and 1Gb uplinks without problems, but if it's solely the firewall, disabling it could resolve the issue. What operating system is the storage server using?

G
GreenLightFabi
Senior Member
696
01-02-2017, 01:38 PM
#4
Both boxes are using Windows 10 Pro. I had to connect the uplink via a direct link by bridging the network cards. Disabling the firewall for public connections was the solution I found, though I wasn’t sure if others do this or if Windows encourages it when notifications are enabled.
G
GreenLightFabi
01-02-2017, 01:38 PM #4

Both boxes are using Windows 10 Pro. I had to connect the uplink via a direct link by bridging the network cards. Disabling the firewall for public connections was the solution I found, though I wasn’t sure if others do this or if Windows encourages it when notifications are enabled.

C
christina412
Junior Member
3
01-02-2017, 10:12 PM
#5
You can include a firewall exception for the ports or programs you require, such as 139 and 445. It should function properly with a bridge, though Windows appears to be behaving oddly there.
C
christina412
01-02-2017, 10:12 PM #5

You can include a firewall exception for the ports or programs you require, such as 139 and 445. It should function properly with a bridge, though Windows appears to be behaving oddly there.

L
langesaeter
Member
62
01-03-2017, 05:02 AM
#6
These ports were likely configured to be accessible via private networks initially. The NICs were originally set as private, and the Windows firewall was simply blocking all traffic on them. There might be local security policy rules affecting how NICs are managed alongside the firewall. Regarding the bridge, it appears the secondary configuration treated the network bridge as a 1Gbps link instead of a higher-speed one.
L
langesaeter
01-03-2017, 05:02 AM #6

These ports were likely configured to be accessible via private networks initially. The NICs were originally set as private, and the Windows firewall was simply blocking all traffic on them. There might be local security policy rules affecting how NICs are managed alongside the firewall. Regarding the bridge, it appears the secondary configuration treated the network bridge as a 1Gbps link instead of a higher-speed one.

I
ImS4G
Member
66
01-03-2017, 11:17 PM
#7
Are you certain the connection is private? It should be configured properly. Could you run a speed test using iperf through the bridge? Windows should handle it.
I
ImS4G
01-03-2017, 11:17 PM #7

Are you certain the connection is private? It should be configured properly. Could you run a speed test using iperf through the bridge? Windows should handle it.

T
tanookitales
Junior Member
8
01-05-2017, 10:59 PM
#8
They aren't marked private right now, though I'm pretty sure they were when I configured the manual IP addresses on both devices. I might have run an iperf test through the bridge and could need to repeat it this weekend.
T
tanookitales
01-05-2017, 10:59 PM #8

They aren't marked private right now, though I'm pretty sure they were when I configured the manual IP addresses on both devices. I might have run an iperf test through the bridge and could need to repeat it this weekend.

S
saburo
Member
192
01-26-2017, 07:34 PM
#9
Consider configuring access control lists to permit traffic from the other PC, effectively adding a whitelist for specific types of communication.
S
saburo
01-26-2017, 07:34 PM #9

Consider configuring access control lists to permit traffic from the other PC, effectively adding a whitelist for specific types of communication.