Help setting up Two Networks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I have been delegated the task of creating an additional network to run
parallel to our existing network. Our existing network is 10/100 and the IP
mask 192.168.1.0. The second network is going to be 100/1000 and the Scheme
should be dissimilar to our existing one. Our goal is to add Gb cards to our
servers and use the second network as a backbone for our Backup Strategy.

I have an idea on how to pursue this but wanted to verify with those of you
that have accomplished this so I could avoid any issues.
I plan to make the Second network mask 192.168.0.0. Then not configure any
gateways with these cards. I want to avoid any DNS registrations for these
cards and only want traffic generated from Veritas to travel over this
network.

Any suggestions would be extremely helpful.
 
Subnets and "backbones" are not the same thing. You can have a single
subnet and still run a "so-called" gigabit backbone. All you do is make
sure that you have gigabit speed between the Switches (uplink cables between
the switches) and gigabit speeds between the servers and the switches
(servers plug into gigbit modules in the switches). Then the workstation all
connect to the switches with 10/100. Now you have a 10/100 LAN with a
gigbit "backbone".

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Deployment Guidelines for ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/isa/2004/deploy/dgisaserver.mspx
 
Phillip,
That solution would work but I thought that would cause a bottleneck where
the 10/100 switch would uplink to Gig switch??? Would that be the case?

My initial thought was two subnets.

Phillip Windell said:
Subnets and "backbones" are not the same thing. You can have a single
subnet and still run a "so-called" gigabit backbone. All you do is make
sure that you have gigabit speed between the Switches (uplink cables between
the switches) and gigabit speeds between the servers and the switches
(servers plug into gigbit modules in the switches). Then the workstation all
connect to the switches with 10/100. Now you have a 10/100 LAN with a
gigbit "backbone".

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Deployment Guidelines for ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/isa/2004/deploy/dgisaserver.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------



Tony said:
I have been delegated the task of creating an additional network to run
parallel to our existing network. Our existing network is 10/100 and the IP
mask 192.168.1.0. The second network is going to be 100/1000 and the Scheme
should be dissimilar to our existing one. Our goal is to add Gb cards to our
servers and use the second network as a backbone for our Backup Strategy.

I have an idea on how to pursue this but wanted to verify with those of you
that have accomplished this so I could avoid any issues.
I plan to make the Second network mask 192.168.0.0. Then not configure any
gateways with these cards. I want to avoid any DNS registrations for these
cards and only want traffic generated from Veritas to travel over this
network.

Any suggestions would be extremely helpful.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tony said:
Phillip,
That solution would work but I thought that would cause a bottleneck where
the 10/100 switch would uplink to Gig switch??? Would that be the case?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you want to consider a "bottle neck". There is
always,...*always*,.....aallwwaayyys,...a bottle neck somewhere,...there is
no way to never have one.

A 12 lane freeway dropping down to a 10 lane freeway is technically a
"bottle neck",...but does that mean a 10 lane freeway is "slow"?,...so does
it matter? The reality is that I could sneak into your building and replace
half you nics with old 10mbps Nics and you would even notice the difference
until you did a large file copy between two machines and actually took the
time to "time it". In fact that is a valid strategy, 10mbps at an
individual machine is often plenty fast enough for typical "office tasks"
and it would have a "trottling effect" that would help prevent staturating
the faster "upstream" links where all the traffic becomes combined and
merges together.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Deployment Guidelines for ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/isa/2004/deploy/dgisaserver.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Given that you have two threads running on this, I'd suggest that you might
want to consider forgetting the second thread and concentrate on this one -
Phillip has some excellent advice for you in this one.

This, in fact, is how we have configured our server farm - all the servers
and the Backup Exec PC are on the "gigabit backbone" on a single gigabit
switch, then that switch feeds the next switch that connects other closets
and clients via a gigabit input from the server switch with 100mbps output
to the client PCs. If your switch won't take a gigabit input then 100mbps
input from the server switch to the client switch(es) will likely suffice.

This will be a much simpler configuration to maintain, especially when Mr.
Murphy sneaks in the back door and re-tweaks your settings for you. :-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
 
Shame you didn't do some up front study on this before getting the hardware.
I think you will find only a marginal difference in your backup speed going
from 100mb to gigabit. You would have been better off converting the
networks backbone to gigabit along with the servers [dual nics in adapter
teaming mode does 4000mbps thruput] which would have paid off for your users
as well as other benefits.

Since you don't mention what your "backup stratagy" is but you mention
Veritas I have to assume you are backing up to tape.

There are usually two issues with backup; capacity and time. Time is the
window allowed for backup before it effects productivity. Capacity is tape
storage. Here is where the dilemma is; do you compress the backup which
increases your storage or do you stay uncompressed which decreases your
backup time.

My take on your solution is that you have reached the max on both fronts and
are simply looking at a way to decrease the backup time by speeding up the
network.

A solution that accomplishes both is disk to disk backup. This usually
involves a NAS unit that you can then backup to tape over a longer period of
time. Disk to disk is much faster than backup to tape. But it is not what I
would call long term storage or practical for off site storage [unless you
replicate between nas units at different sites]. I have found uncompressed
backups are the only way to go for decreasing the amount of time a backup
takes. Never disable verify and always test your backups by doing spot
restores and then compare the data. Those that don't do this are foolish and
will soon or later be presented with the scenerio of their only option is to
restore from tape only to find the backup no good.
 
Nope, not necessarily. Veritas supports backup-to-folder for fast backup,
you can then archive the backup to tape on your own timetable.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
 
Richard G. Harper said:
Given that you have two threads running on this, I'd suggest that you might
want to consider forgetting the second thread and concentrate on this one -
Phillip has some excellent advice for you in this one.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm gettin' outta my element here. I supposed to be annoying people.
You guys are gonna make me all mushy!

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Deployment Guidelines for ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/isa/2004/deploy/dgisaserver.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Oh. Sorry. I'll try again:

"For a change, Phillip hasn't tripped on his own shoelaces and has actually
remained upright long enough to dispense some reasonable advice ..."

:-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
 
Josh,
I am actually in research mode, funny you should mention that. I have
purchased a NAS device and am planning a D2D2Tape backup. Some of our
servers are hit 24/7 so it is critical to maintain a bandwidth for front end
users while backing up critical data. This is the sole reason why I was
considering moving towards two different subnets.
Phillips suggestion would work perfectly; however, my concern would be a
bottleneck. Hearing his and another person's response eased my mind now and
it looks as if I have options. So now I have to think long term.

You brought up something that I had not considered. How can I setup
"Adapter Teaming Mode"?
 
You guys obviously know each other well enough to break each other's stones
so I will leave you to that.
Before I go I want to thank you guys for the excellent advice but I also
want to be certain of the outcome here.
I have options here and would like to deploy the best possible solution for
today and tomorrow.
You all mentioned that having the servers one GB switch then having that
switch connect to my other swithes which then connect all my workstations
would be suffice? Doing this without concern for bottlenecks as well.
Correct?

Josh had a good suggestion using dual nics in adapter
teaming mode. How difficult is that to setup?
Thanks again guys.


Richard G. Harper said:
Oh. Sorry. I'll try again:

"For a change, Phillip hasn't tripped on his own shoelaces and has actually
remained upright long enough to dispense some reasonable advice ..."

:-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


Well, I'm gettin' outta my element here. I supposed to be annoying people.
You guys are gonna make me all mushy!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
That's better.....

Say, I'm gonna be at the MS Office on Wacker Dr in Chicago again on the 22nd
for a Peter's & Associates half-day seminar thing. I think it has been
almost exactly a year since the last time we were there. I'll see ya if
you're there.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

Richard G. Harper said:
Oh. Sorry. I'll try again:

"For a change, Phillip hasn't tripped on his own shoelaces and has actually
remained upright long enough to dispense some reasonable advice ..."

:-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


Well, I'm gettin' outta my element here. I supposed to be annoying people.
You guys are gonna make me all mushy!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tony said:
You all mentioned that having the servers one GB switch then having that
switch connect to my other swithes which then connect all my workstations
would be suffice? Doing this without concern for bottlenecks as well.
Correct?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The Backplane on most quality switches is about 3gig or
better. If you connect (daisy chain) all the switches together using gigabit
uplink modules and plug the servers into a gigabit switch or a switch with
enough gigbit ports for each server,....it sounds fine to me. All the other
machines can connect to regular 10/100 ports on regular 10/100 switches.
Josh had a good suggestion using dual nics in adapter
teaming mode. How difficult is that to setup?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I haven't done it,...never felt the need. But I think you have to
make sure the Switch use can deal with it. Normally switches do thier
"switching" by MAC address which might cause the switch to lock on to only
one Nic or the other and ignore the second one. But like I said,..I've
never done it,..I'd have to research all that myself if I ever did it.

However I think you are severly over estimating the amount of traffic you
are going to create and are severly under estimating the capability of
100mbps or 1000mbps links. 100mbps links aren't as weak and lame as you
might be thinking they are. I run a whole TV station on just 10/100 Nics
and we have a lot more "high tech" equipment then your average office is
going to have and I never have any bandwidth problems.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/ISA2004_AccessRules.html

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Guidance
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2004.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/techinfo/Guidance/2000.asp

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Deployment Guidelines for ISA Server 2004 Enterprise Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/isa/2004/deploy/dgisaserver.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Again, I must agree with Phillip, and say again that our network backbone is
configured exactly as I described. We don't see any problems with
down-level clients on 100mbps accessing the servers on the 1gbps backbone.
You'd really need to do some heavy pulling for a long period of time to
experience congestion if all else on the network is working well.

And again, I'd not worry about NIC teaming or other complications until you
can prove via System Monitor that you're indeed filling up one 1gbps channel
on a regular and sustained basis.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


Tony said:
You guys obviously know each other well enough to break each other's
stones
so I will leave you to that.
Before I go I want to thank you guys for the excellent advice but I also
want to be certain of the outcome here.
I have options here and would like to deploy the best possible solution
for
today and tomorrow.
You all mentioned that having the servers one GB switch then having that
switch connect to my other swithes which then connect all my workstations
would be suffice? Doing this without concern for bottlenecks as well.
Correct?

Josh had a good suggestion using dual nics in adapter
teaming mode. How difficult is that to setup?
Thanks again guys.


Richard G. Harper said:
Oh. Sorry. I'll try again:

"For a change, Phillip hasn't tripped on his own shoelaces and has
actually
remained upright long enough to dispense some reasonable advice ..."

:-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


Well, I'm gettin' outta my element here. I supposed to be annoying
people.
You guys are gonna make me all mushy!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Sadly I didn't get an invite to that, and the timing would be a bit hectic
even if I had. Looks like the hardware's coming out of my elbow in early to
mid-March (thank heavens!!!) so I'm up to my earlobes in "Get this done
before you go on leave!" lists. :-(

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
 
Richard G. Harper said:
Sadly I didn't get an invite to that, and the timing would be a bit hectic
even if I had. Looks like the hardware's coming out of my elbow in early to
mid-March (thank heavens!!!) so I'm up to my earlobes in "Get this done
before you go on leave!" lists. :-(
Click to expand...

Well, you don't need an invite, heck my registration didn't even work. I
called them,..they said just "show up" and its good enough for them. But I
take a peek at the event calendar once in a while, I'm sure something else
will come up,..they've always got something going on over there. On March
22, they have a couple events about a 40 minute drive from my house at the
Cevention Center in Springfield, Il. I have to find some thing to go to
since the next Summit isn't until March of 2007.

But I understand about the arm. I was wondering how that is healing. I don't
ride when it's cold, so I've had to move my bike out of the way a few times
in the room its in and I thought of you (and curbs, and pavement, and
stuff). It still makes me cringe.
 
Most days the arm is pretty good, today it was a bit prickly. I keep my
sling handy (no longer need the splint, thank heavens!) for such days.

I need to keep a better eye on the calendar and see what's coming up. I'll
see what's up in March, might be a chance to get together and say howdy!

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
 
Back
Top