Re: Problem on 2 NICs
From: Jack Ling (anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 04/22/04
- Next message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: Server 2003 login problem - username/password boxes grayed out"
- Previous message: Asima Sultana [MSFT]: "RE: The local policy of this system does not permit you to logon interactively"
- In reply to: Ken Phillips \(UK\): "Re: Problem on 2 NICs"
- Next in thread: Tom Miller: "Re: Problem on 2 NICs"
- Reply: Tom Miller: "Re: Problem on 2 NICs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:15:54 -0700
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your reply.
Path 1: The servers are connected to the same switch (the
switch has 2 VLANs, but both servers are on the same
VLAN). Workstations are connected to the 100Mbps switch.
This connection is for workstations to talk to the
servers.
Path 2: with a different set of IP subnet, server 1 and
server 2 are directly connected to each other w/
connection speed of 1000Mbps. Yes. I'm after performance.
Later on, we are considering to replicate (at interval)
database from server 1 to server 2. So, for such
application, I thought, a "dedicated" connection between
the two servers won't jam up the network (i.e. don't want
to saturate the shared link at path 1).
It seems my idea was wrong.
So, that means I could not make use of the 2nd NIC to
overload the shared network?
thanks for your guidance,
jackling
>-----Original Message-----
>
>"Jack Ling" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
>news:1e8101c4273c$bc7287c0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>>
>> The two servers are connected to the same switch, a
Cisco
>> Catalyst 3550 switch. The server's 2nd NICs are
>> interconnected with each other, which I thought, would
be
>> useful for replicating data directly to-and-from the 2
>> servers.
>>
>> thanks,
>> jackling.
>
>I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by creating
two separate
>simultaneous paths between each server, or have you got
vlans established on
>your switch ports? Can you replicate the working/not
working scenario by
>disabling either/or both servers NIC1 (the one
connecting to the switch)?
>If so, this would indicate they are not happy having two
simultaneous
>connections to each other, I don't personally know how
to make what you want
>to do work, if indeed it's possible, or why you think
it's necessary.
>Are you after redundancy, extra bandwidth? Assuming
you're on cat5 utp
>running 100Mbs full duplex, are you expecting to
saturate a single link (via
>the switch) with the data they will be sharing, plus
what other machines
>might be demanding?
>
>Ken
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >Jack
>> >
>> >Does each server connect to the same switch, or do
they
>> each connect to
>> >their own separate switch, going off to their own
>> separate network/subnet?
>> >
>> >Ken P
>> >
>> >"Jack Ling" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote
>> in message
>> >news:16a901c426a7$a67f96f0$a001280a@phx.gbl...
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We expereience a problem on Wnidows 2003 servers.
>> >> We have 2 servers on W2K3, and each with 2 NICs (1
>> >> connecting to the LAN's switch, the other for the 2
>> >> servers to connect to each other).
>> >>
>> >> I have Shares on server 1 for common access. It is
ok
>> IF
>> >> NIC 2 (the one connecting to the 2nd server) is
>> disabled.
>> >> If NIC2 were enabled, clients can't locate the
server
>> at
>> >> all and unable to connect to the shares for drive
>> mapping.
>> >>
>> >> Any idea please?
>> >> jacklingJack
>
>"Jack Ling" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
>news:1e8101c4273c$bc7287c0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>>
>> The two servers are connected to the same switch, a
Cisco
>> Catalyst 3550 switch. The server's 2nd NICs are
>> interconnected with each other, which I thought, would
be
>> useful for replicating data directly to-and-from the 2
>> servers.
>>
>> thanks,
>> jackling.
>
>I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by creating
two separate
>simultaneous paths between each server, or have you got
vlans established on
>your switch ports? Can you replicate the working/not
working scenario by
>disabling either/or both servers NIC1 (the one
connecting to the switch)?
>If so, this would indicate they are not happy having two
simultaneous
>connections to each other, I don't personally know how
to make what you want
>to do work, if indeed it's possible, or why you think
it's necessary.
>Are you after redundancy, extra bandwidth? Assuming
you're on cat5 utp
>running 100Mbs full duplex, are you expecting to
saturate a single link (via
>the switch) with the data they will be sharing, plus
what other machines
>might be demanding?
>
>Ken
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >Jack
>> >
>> >Does each server connect to the same switch, or do
they
>> each connect to
>> >their own separate switch, going off to their own
>> separate network/subnet?
>> >
>> >Ken P
>> >
>> >"Jack Ling" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote
>> in message
>> >news:16a901c426a7$a67f96f0$a001280a@phx.gbl...
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We expereience a problem on Wnidows 2003 servers.
>> >> We have 2 servers on W2K3, and each with 2 NICs (1
>> >> connecting to the LAN's switch, the other for the 2
>> >> servers to connect to each other).
>> >>
>> >> I have Shares on server 1 for common access. It is
ok
>> IF
>> >> NIC 2 (the one connecting to the 2nd server) is
>> disabled.
>> >> If NIC2 were enabled, clients can't locate the
server
>> at
>> >> all and unable to connect to the shares for drive
>> mapping.
>> >>
>> >> Any idea please?
>> >> jacklingJack
>
>
>.
>
- Next message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: Server 2003 login problem - username/password boxes grayed out"
- Previous message: Asima Sultana [MSFT]: "RE: The local policy of this system does not permit you to logon interactively"
- In reply to: Ken Phillips \(UK\): "Re: Problem on 2 NICs"
- Next in thread: Tom Miller: "Re: Problem on 2 NICs"
- Reply: Tom Miller: "Re: Problem on 2 NICs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|