Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- From: "Phillip Windell" <philwindell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:39:06 -0500
Looks like I deleted the original post. Can you re-explain what you had planed
to do originally?
I'll continue below with what I already know.....
"Dan" <Dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:D277DF73-D0A3-4DBA-AA31-AFA2A6F49203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
your answer makes perfect sense, perhaps I didnt explain everything in detail
the 2 servers that are causing my network to come to a crawl are video
Sounds like a TV station. That is what we are,..an NBC Affiliate.
servers that record data and store it on a Windows Server with mega TB space.
So they are always sending data at this box. So without spending a ton of
money, I wanted to see if creating a separate netowork from the 192.168.1.xxx
LAN, calling it 192.168.2.xxx would isolate the problem from all the
complaining end users.
You can but it depends on exactly how you do that. You'd be better off trying
to first solve it at Layer2 first,...then if all else fails,..create a Layer3
solution.
If I stop these video servers the network jumps back
to its usual Gbps speed. All the servers are on Gbps switches, as well as
the video servers that are writing the data to this box. End users are all
10/100. Uggghhhhh. What can I do to solve this without restucturing, and a
ton of $$$$$. Would RRAS help this?
Creating separate Layer3 segments can isolate the traffic but I don't think that
is what is needed, and even then it depends on how it was done. Which server
actually runs RRAS and has the two nics will make a big difference.
You have to carefully anylize your physical cabling structure to make sure that
the physical path taken by the traffic does not "share" any physical cables the
LAN needs for the rest of its traffic.
Notice the two examples below. The links between switches is effectively the
"backbone" of the LAN and that is where the trouble will happen. In the "bad"
example the link between the switch-1 and switch-2 takes all the load of both
the users and the video traffic. Then in the "good" examples they have separate
virtual curcuits. They do share the switch-1 but the traffic is kept separated
by the functionality of the switch and the only "shared" portion is the
backplane of the switch and a good switch can handle that just fine.
-Bad-
LAN Server
|
<switch 1>---Vid Server B
|
<switch 2>---Vid Server A
|
<users>
-Good-
LAN Server
|
Vid Server A---<switch 1>---Vid Server B
|
<switch 2>
|
<users>
-Also Good-
LAN Server
|
Vid Server A---<switch 1>---Vid Server B
|
<users>
There are ways to do two different physical LANs with a Router connecting the
two but that introduces possibly complex "Naming" issues with multi homing. If
more than one of these involved video serverhave two nics and sit on both LANs
at the same then there is going to be big problems getting the machine to be
identified by the proper IP# for each particular process which will in turn
effect the physical path taken by traffic generated by that process.
--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com
The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft, or
anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- From: Dan
- Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- References:
- Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- From: Phillip Windell
- Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- From: Phillip Windell
- Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- Prev by Date: Re: Really slow server to client transfer speeds
- Next by Date: Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- Previous by thread: Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- Next by thread: Re: Multihomed Routing RRAS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
