F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Networks The SMB3 Multi Channel feature isn't functioning on any of your devices, and Google isn't providing much assistance.

The SMB3 Multi Channel feature isn't functioning on any of your devices, and Google isn't providing much assistance.

The SMB3 Multi Channel feature isn't functioning on any of your devices, and Google isn't providing much assistance.

B
Berkzz_PvP
Junior Member
2
06-28-2016, 06:15 AM
#1
Welcome! I'm here to help clarify why your SMB Multichannel setup isn't performing as expected. You're using a mix of devices and configurations, which can sometimes be tricky. Everything seems set up correctly according to the guides you've checked—ports, IPs, software versions—so the issue likely lies elsewhere. Have you tried testing with a different network switch or router? Also, ensure your clients are connected properly and that there are no firewall rules blocking SMB traffic.
B
Berkzz_PvP
06-28-2016, 06:15 AM #1

Welcome! I'm here to help clarify why your SMB Multichannel setup isn't performing as expected. You're using a mix of devices and configurations, which can sometimes be tricky. Everything seems set up correctly according to the guides you've checked—ports, IPs, software versions—so the issue likely lies elsewhere. Have you tried testing with a different network switch or router? Also, ensure your clients are connected properly and that there are no firewall rules blocking SMB traffic.

M
MCCrafter100
Member
159
06-28-2016, 11:49 AM
#2
I'm dealing with a basic Synology NAS setup where one port handles system backups over SMB 3. I'm not sure what multichannel means in this scenario. Regarding the consumer NAS client, it seems unusual to combine two IP addresses for the same server to improve transfer speeds—this would likely require a dedicated app. As for link aggregation, I haven't personally experienced it, but I think it should preserve a single TCP/IP session across multiple ports or links. Feel free to share your thoughts if you have any corrections or insights.
M
MCCrafter100
06-28-2016, 11:49 AM #2

I'm dealing with a basic Synology NAS setup where one port handles system backups over SMB 3. I'm not sure what multichannel means in this scenario. Regarding the consumer NAS client, it seems unusual to combine two IP addresses for the same server to improve transfer speeds—this would likely require a dedicated app. As for link aggregation, I haven't personally experienced it, but I think it should preserve a single TCP/IP session across multiple ports or links. Feel free to share your thoughts if you have any corrections or insights.

O
Oreos_4_Life
Junior Member
10
07-03-2016, 07:01 PM
#3
It doesn't connect two IP addresses directly. Link aggregation merges several interfaces into one virtual link, distributing traffic among them. Multi-channel aims to recognize this and instruct the client to activate as many links as possible for optimal performance. I'm curious though—could this functionality vary depending on how load balancing is implemented at the aggregation level? The challenge with aggregation lies in ensuring both ends of the connection support the correct behavior. I assume different modes exist, each determining which physical interface gets prioritized. If it relies solely on client settings, multiple links won't provide additional benefits.
O
Oreos_4_Life
07-03-2016, 07:01 PM #3

It doesn't connect two IP addresses directly. Link aggregation merges several interfaces into one virtual link, distributing traffic among them. Multi-channel aims to recognize this and instruct the client to activate as many links as possible for optimal performance. I'm curious though—could this functionality vary depending on how load balancing is implemented at the aggregation level? The challenge with aggregation lies in ensuring both ends of the connection support the correct behavior. I assume different modes exist, each determining which physical interface gets prioritized. If it relies solely on client settings, multiple links won't provide additional benefits.

X
XxKripxDeMoNxX
Senior Member
536
07-17-2016, 02:35 PM
#4
I thought the original poster assumed they used link aggregation on just one of the two servers. When I mentioned tap 2 IPs, I wasn't talking about the aggregated server itself. Regarding the server handling Link Aggregation, I believe LA represents a basic load balancing method at the network level, and anything more advanced is seen as independent load balancing not tied to link aggregation.
X
XxKripxDeMoNxX
07-17-2016, 02:35 PM #4

I thought the original poster assumed they used link aggregation on just one of the two servers. When I mentioned tap 2 IPs, I wasn't talking about the aggregated server itself. Regarding the server handling Link Aggregation, I believe LA represents a basic load balancing method at the network level, and anything more advanced is seen as independent load balancing not tied to link aggregation.

R
Rexty_
Senior Member
568
07-17-2016, 07:19 PM
#5
The document discusses LACP bonding and Linux configuration. It suggests that the Windows interface should support LACP rather than just basic LAG for proper functionality.
R
Rexty_
07-17-2016, 07:19 PM #5

The document discusses LACP bonding and Linux configuration. It suggests that the Windows interface should support LACP rather than just basic LAG for proper functionality.

G
grungirbit
Junior Member
4
07-18-2016, 06:18 AM
#6
I realize my mistake regarding LACP. Upon rechecking, it appears you require several IP addresses on the same subnet, a detail I initially misunderstood when it was first introduced.
G
grungirbit
07-18-2016, 06:18 AM #6

I realize my mistake regarding LACP. Upon rechecking, it appears you require several IP addresses on the same subnet, a detail I initially misunderstood when it was first introduced.

R
Rosario17_
Posting Freak
897
07-18-2016, 11:47 AM
#7
R
Rosario17_
07-18-2016, 11:47 AM #7

S
spyfoneMC
Member
140
07-19-2016, 01:21 AM
#8
Absolutely, I've struggled with connecting just one device and multiple NICS units before. It works well for distributing workloads across several clients, and it's much easier to use a 2.5Gbit connection or go higher if needed. USB dongles cost around $25 to $30 each, and you can configure them to support the Synology system.
S
spyfoneMC
07-19-2016, 01:21 AM #8

Absolutely, I've struggled with connecting just one device and multiple NICS units before. It works well for distributing workloads across several clients, and it's much easier to use a 2.5Gbit connection or go higher if needed. USB dongles cost around $25 to $30 each, and you can configure them to support the Synology system.