Utilizing 2nd LAN Port

[linus12]

My current Server motherboard (See Signature - SuperMicro X11SSH-CTF) has two LAN ports. Understand they have to be on separate subnets to connect them both, but was wondering if I can direct connect them to a second LAN port on my Windows 10 PC for a faster, more robust connection when transferring large files.

The two systems basically set next to each other, but don't know if this is even possible, or if a spare router, not connected to the network, would be necessary to complete the connection/handshake.

I would keep the normal LAN connections so everyone else on the network can access the server as needed.

How are others utilizing this secondary LAN port?

Note that I am currently running FreeNAS will be updating to TrueNAS - Core soon.

 

[winnielinnie]

Straight ethernet cable from the NAS's LAN2 port to the Windows' LAN2 port?

Yes, that can work.

Just manually set their IP addresses, without using DHCP.

For example:
LAN2 port of NAS: 192.168.30.2/24
LAN2 port of Windows: 192.168.30.3/24

Now just use the interface/IP when dealing with transfers to the NAS from the Windows PC directly. (Everything will be isolated to a single ethernet cable between the two, without any devices in between.)

For example:
From your Windows PC, you connect to an SMB share via \\192.168.30.2\myshare

Will you see much performance gain? Probably not. However, since they will be the only two devices on this "network", you can set the MTU to 9000 for both interfaces (on the NAS and on Windows). I'm currently doing this and have noticed a slight bump up in throughput speeds.

This allows a "dedicated" line to a single client PC (bypassing the rest of your home's network), which makes sense if the PC is physically nearby anyways.

 

[danb35]

How are others utilizing this secondary LAN port?

I think mostly by not using it--there's rarely much if anything to be gained by doing so. If you have a managed switch, you can aggregate them.

 

[jgreco]

I think mostly by not using it--there's rarely much if anything to be gained by doing so. If you have a managed switch, you can aggregate them.

It is true that these are hard to make use of in a typical home user/enthusiast network where there is just a single network. In such a case, you are mostly limited to doing something like LACP if your switch supports it. It could also be used as the external interface for a bridge servicing jails or VM's.

If your switch supports VLANs, there are a variety of ways to break the network up into multiple segments. Perhaps you would have a VLAN for PC's, a VLAN for wifi, a VLAN for media streamers, a VLAN for security cameras, etc. In such a design, it then becomes quite useful to have multiple networks so that you can assign a dedicated interface to the highest traffic VLAN.

 

[linus12]

Straight ethernet cable from the NAS's LAN2 port to the Windows' LAN2 port?

Yes, that can work.

Just manually set their IP addresses, without using DHCP.

For example:
LAN2 port of NAS: 192.168.30.2/24
LAN2 port of Windows: 192.168.30.3/24

Now just use the interface/IP when dealing with transfers to the NAS from the Windows PC directly. (Everything will be isolated to a single ethernet cable between the two, without any devices in between.)

For example:
From your Windows PC, you connect to an SMB share via \\192.168.30.2\myshare

Will you see much performance gain? Probably not. However, since they will be the only two devices on this "network", you can set the MTU to 9000 for both interfaces (on the NAS and on Windows). I'm currently doing this and have noticed a slight bump up in throughput speeds.

This allows a "dedicated" line to a single client PC (bypassing the rest of your home's network), which makes sense if the PC is physically nearby anyways.

Understand this is for just a single client PC... I tend to rip my Media on my personal computer and then eventually do massive transfer to the Server once everything checks out. This usually involves large files in the 10-12Gb range totally about 300GB per transfer.

Rest of my users hate me when I do this because it clogs up the bandwidth on the network... Even if I don't get a speed bump, hopefully it will reduce the hogging of the bandwidth on my home network. I'll give it a try.

 

[WI_Hedgehog]

You might run into an issue with the TrueNAS User Interface because NIC1 will define a subnet and then you'll try to put NIC2 on the same subnet which the UI probably won't allow because it will cause routing issues.

If NIC1 is 192.168.0.1/24
then NIC2 can be 192.168.1.1/24

and similar on your Windows PC:
NIC1: 192.168.0.2/24
NIC2: 192.168.1.2/24

However, you're going to potentially run into conflicts unless you set up Static Routing because your WinMediaPC is potentially going to have two distinct paths to BigNAS1 (via two network paths 192.168.0.xxx and 192.168.1.xxx). So, from the uninformed standpoint of WinMediaPC, are there two machines named BigNAS1 or two routes to BigNAS1, and which one of those four options is correct?

So, the routing thing you're probably more interested in is being able to set up Jumbo Frames on 192.168.1.xxx, which is going to save truckloads of overhead. Potentially. A standard MTU is 1492, with a maximum frame size of 1500 bytes (plus 18 bytes overhead). This is going to slow Gigabit Ethernet down to 68 MB/s, however, if you can push a 15K Jumbo Frame you're possibly over 96 MB/s which is getting close to 50% faster, "and that ain't nuthin' to sneeze at" (as my intern would say).

(smash that Like button, it's the only reward they let me have)

 

[winnielinnie]

You might run into an issue with the TrueNAS User Interface because NIC1 will define a subnet and then you'll try to put NIC2 on the same subnet which the UI probably won't allow because it will cause routing issues.

If NIC1 is 192.168.0.1/24
then NIC2 can be 192.168.1.1/24

and similar on your Windows PC:
NIC1: 192.168.0.2/24
NIC2: 192.168.1.2/24

That's why in my example, I used 192.168.30.2 /24

To emphasize a highly unlikely subnet for an existing home network.

However, you're going to potentially run into conflicts unless you set up Static Routing because your WinMediaPC is potentially going to have two distinct paths to BigNAS1 (via two network paths 192.168.0.xxx and 192.168.1.xxx). So, from the uninformed standpoint of WinMediaPC, are there two machines named BigNAS1 or two routes to BigNAS1, and which one of those four options is correct?

Easily remedied by adding custom entries under the Windows "hosts" file. Or by simply specifying all TrueNAS-related connections and transfers to the "dedicated" IP address/subnet.

(i.e, shortcuts, network drives, location bar in Explorer, scripts, etc, will only use 192.168.30.2)

 

[danb35]

To emphasize a highly unlikely subnet for an existing home network.

Well, there I go being weird again...