F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Networks Top LAN card for NIC teaming

Top LAN card for NIC teaming

Top LAN card for NIC teaming

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
L
lewbobberlew
Member
50
10-02-2016, 08:10 AM
#1
Can I inquire about the optimal LAN card for NIC teaming on my diskless server? I'm using CCBOT for my internet cafe and have 10 clients connected.
L
lewbobberlew
10-02-2016, 08:10 AM #1

Can I inquire about the optimal LAN card for NIC teaming on my diskless server? I'm using CCBOT for my internet cafe and have 10 clients connected.

T
Tjeard_
Member
179
10-02-2016, 09:47 AM
#2
Usually the OS is not helpful since it mainly connects servers to several clients, but this could be beneficial in this case. Most situations prefer 10GbE for better performance and lower costs. For gigabit connections, Intel i350 is often a top choice. If you need something else, consider MetaX 10Gbe SPF+ cards. Diskless setups aren't ideal with just ten clients.
T
Tjeard_
10-02-2016, 09:47 AM #2

Usually the OS is not helpful since it mainly connects servers to several clients, but this could be beneficial in this case. Most situations prefer 10GbE for better performance and lower costs. For gigabit connections, Intel i350 is often a top choice. If you need something else, consider MetaX 10Gbe SPF+ cards. Diskless setups aren't ideal with just ten clients.

3
3Geschenk3
Junior Member
43
10-02-2016, 02:31 PM
#3
Server runs on Windows 8.1 with a powerful Intel Core i7 4790k, 16GB RAM, Corsair 1600MHz memory, and a 3x WD SSD Green 500GB drive. The motherboard is ASRock Z97 Killer F1tality, powered by a Thermaltake Smart RGB 750W PSU. I prefer using disk space wisely since there are fewer updates needed—just updating games on the server saves costs because I don’t have to purchase all client drives.
3
3Geschenk3
10-02-2016, 02:31 PM #3

Server runs on Windows 8.1 with a powerful Intel Core i7 4790k, 16GB RAM, Corsair 1600MHz memory, and a 3x WD SSD Green 500GB drive. The motherboard is ASRock Z97 Killer F1tality, powered by a Thermaltake Smart RGB 750W PSU. I prefer using disk space wisely since there are fewer updates needed—just updating games on the server saves costs because I don’t have to purchase all client drives.

C
candyfartsfox
Junior Member
8
10-02-2016, 04:27 PM
#4
What switch are you running? Id get a switch like this https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-ProCurve-J91...SwMz5aJbkr and a network card like this one https://www.ebay.com/itm/RT8N1-0RT8N1-DE...SwoRBaaRIb
C
candyfartsfox
10-02-2016, 04:27 PM #4

What switch are you running? Id get a switch like this https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-ProCurve-J91...SwMz5aJbkr and a network card like this one https://www.ebay.com/itm/RT8N1-0RT8N1-DE...SwoRBaaRIb

S
SpiritClaws
Member
217
10-02-2016, 05:11 PM
#5
I have a TP-Link TL-SG1016D Gigabit Switch. It’s currently connected to an onboard LAN... perhaps a 2 or 4-port LAN card would work since I need quicker data speeds. This is because my client is playing demanding games like PUBG.
S
SpiritClaws
10-02-2016, 05:11 PM #5

I have a TP-Link TL-SG1016D Gigabit Switch. It’s currently connected to an onboard LAN... perhaps a 2 or 4-port LAN card would work since I need quicker data speeds. This is because my client is playing demanding games like PUBG.

W
Wolf_SkillZ
Junior Member
3
10-07-2016, 06:02 AM
#6
This switch cannot be used with LTE calling because it requires a managed switch. Teaming won’t improve performance for just one client.
W
Wolf_SkillZ
10-07-2016, 06:02 AM #6

This switch cannot be used with LTE calling because it requires a managed switch. Teaming won’t improve performance for just one client.

M
Marine_Ji
Junior Member
19
10-07-2016, 10:06 PM
#7
Sure, I'll try to locate an alternative switch...
M
Marine_Ji
10-07-2016, 10:06 PM #7

Sure, I'll try to locate an alternative switch...

E
Elina_Aada20
Member
141
10-07-2016, 10:11 PM
#8
Find a similar item featuring a 10GbE connection.
E
Elina_Aada20
10-07-2016, 10:11 PM #8

Find a similar item featuring a 10GbE connection.

P
Phantasmaw
Junior Member
13
10-07-2016, 11:26 PM
#9
that's incorrect, you can apply transmit load balancing which sends packets from all interfaces but only accepts them on one since it has the MAC address. personally I don't prefer this method as it complicates troubleshooting. if you opt for LACP you'll require a managed switch that supports features like EtherChannel, but it doesn't actually double bandwidth; you're limited to one NIC per client, so PC to PC transfer is about 1gb/sec unless you're connecting multiple PCs together, then speeds can reach 2gb/sec. personally I suggest simple active/passive networking which works well in Windows 2012 to 2016 environments offering some reliability. though if both devices are connected to the same switch without redundancy, it doesn't significantly reduce single points of failure. 1GbE is genuinely quite fast and most server tasks rarely exceed that capacity.
P
Phantasmaw
10-07-2016, 11:26 PM #9

that's incorrect, you can apply transmit load balancing which sends packets from all interfaces but only accepts them on one since it has the MAC address. personally I don't prefer this method as it complicates troubleshooting. if you opt for LACP you'll require a managed switch that supports features like EtherChannel, but it doesn't actually double bandwidth; you're limited to one NIC per client, so PC to PC transfer is about 1gb/sec unless you're connecting multiple PCs together, then speeds can reach 2gb/sec. personally I suggest simple active/passive networking which works well in Windows 2012 to 2016 environments offering some reliability. though if both devices are connected to the same switch without redundancy, it doesn't significantly reduce single points of failure. 1GbE is genuinely quite fast and most server tasks rarely exceed that capacity.

R
Rainmaker2003
Junior Member
9
10-09-2016, 09:45 AM
#10
It's mainly useful when the connection is busy; otherwise, boosting single-client speed won't help much. If congestion is the problem, it might be worth looking into, but overall it doesn't seem worthwhile. Linux can handle switch-based load balancing without assistance, though it usually remains point-to-point and won't improve client speeds.
R
Rainmaker2003
10-09-2016, 09:45 AM #10

It's mainly useful when the connection is busy; otherwise, boosting single-client speed won't help much. If congestion is the problem, it might be worth looking into, but overall it doesn't seem worthwhile. Linux can handle switch-based load balancing without assistance, though it usually remains point-to-point and won't improve client speeds.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next