LACP/Link aggregation and NAS's

[MattNA]

Has anybody done it? Is the extra money spent worth it?

I'm mostly interested in the Asus router RT-AC88U that supports it and has eight LAN ports.
My second option is a WRT type router and 3rd party firmware that supports link aggregation. I have no idea if the router would need hardware to support LAG though.

I have a Qnap NAS on order which has two RJ45 ports for link aggregation and I already have a two port Intel NIC.

 

[kanewolf]

You will benefit from LAG only if you have multiple simultaneous transfers from multiple devices happening. Each client is still limited to 1Gb or less. You can accomplish LAG with a separate managed switch and not have to spend hundreds of $$$ for the latest router.

 

[jsmithepa]

A usd$300 WIFI router, it better works! Lots of Amazon reviews about this router read like advertisement, GIVE ME SOME NUMBERS PEOPLE!

 

[MattNA]

You will benefit from LAG only if you have multiple simultaneous transfers from multiple devices happening. Each client is still limited to 1Gb or less. You can accomplish LAG with a separate managed switch and not have to spend hundreds of $$$ for the latest router.

What you're saying is I won't be able to accomplish LAG from a two RJ45 port NAS?
I thought of using a switch but from what I have read a switch would have to be managed (not a web manager) to support LAG. Looking on Ebay they are expensive to me.

Plus in order to share the switch would have to be WRT (wireless).

Please let me know if I'm wrong on any of this. I'm a newb with networking.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to spend $300 on a router. I'll wait about a year or so before buying. Presuming that's my best option. ie: the price to achieve LAG now is X. The price in a year should be closer to X.

A usd$300 WIFI router, it better works! Lots of Amazon reviews about this router read like advertisement, GIVE ME SOME NUMBERS PEOPLE!

I know what you mean when it comes to user reviews. No help on that particular rotor right now. People that could give us numbers aren't going to spend $300 and the people who spend the money are just everyday people looking for a fix to their wireless problems.


I know I'm not spending $300 on a router. I wanted to know if it's worth it or if anybody out there had a similar setup or maybe somebody would say "this is what I've done to achieve LAG on my NAS". I like to think I am capable of cutting through an exaggerated claim and make a better decision.

 

[kanewolf]

LAG will definitely not help with wireless. Even AC WIFI will have trouble getting 1Gb. Netgear GS108T switches (v1 and v2) are available on ebay for < $75. If that seems expensive, then I don't know what $300 for a router is like. You can definitely DO LAG on a managed switch or the router you mentioned. I just don't believe you will see a significant benefit.

 

[MattNA]

LAG will definitely not help with wireless. Even AC WIFI will have trouble getting 1Gb. Netgear GS108T switches (v1 and v2) are available on ebay for < $75. If that seems expensive, then I don't know what $300 for a router is like. You can definitely DO LAG on a managed switch or the router you mentioned. I just don't believe you will see a significant benefit.

Do you think a managed switch with a web manager will do LAG? Those are a lot less in price.

The wireless part is just for sharing and streaming. NAS's are hardwired into the network/router. Most have the ability to transcode then share and stream to a mobile devise or laptop. Better if you had a PC with a wired connection to the same network.
By transcode I mean if you have a lossless audio file on your NAS it will convert the file to MP3 for streaming and bandwidth purposes.


My goal is to get the most out of a NAS but, not if it's gonna cost me a lot.

Another question
This is just me thinking. If I use a switch it wont be wireless right. What if I used a switch and then rerouted the PC's Shared folders to the location of my NAS. Sounds feasible that it would become a wireless folder available to people on my network.

Again, it's just me thinking. I'm not about to buy a bunch of expensive equipment to find out.

 

[bill001g]

Before you get real far into the planning you need to go back and determine if it will even buy you anything.

Port aggregation does not load balance a single session across both paths. This means it will not improve a single file transfer. All the traffic will still only use 1 connection....even if you bonded 4 or 8 or whatever. Now if you had 2 sessions transferring files then it "might" use both paths. It is really stupid method and it does not consider other traffic when it selects so it can put all the session on 1 link and leave the other idle.

Really the only way this work somewhat ok is if you have a large number of machines transferring data to/from a central server. With large numbers the pure random selection tends to more or less balance.

This issue is part of the reason that enterprise level installs no longer use port aggregation. They have gone to 10g or larger ports to solve this. The only thing they use port aggregation for is to provide redundancy for a hardware failure and it needs a very special switch that can bond ports across separate physical switches.

 

[MattNA]

Before you get real far into the planning you need to go back and determine if it will even buy you anything.

Port aggregation does not load balance a single session across both paths. This means it will not improve a single file transfer. All the traffic will still only use 1 connection....even if you bonded 4 or 8 or whatever. Now if you had 2 sessions transferring files then it "might" use both paths. It is really stupid method and it does not consider other traffic when it selects so it can put all the session on 1 link and leave the other idle.

Really the only way this work somewhat ok is if you have a large number of machines transferring data to/from a central server. With large numbers the pure random selection tends to more or less balance.

This issue is part of the reason that enterprise level installs no longer use port aggregation. They have gone to 10g or larger ports to solve this. The only thing they use port aggregation for is to provide redundancy for a hardware failure and it needs a very special switch that can bond ports across separate physical switches.

 

[MattNA]

Before you get real far into the planning you need to go back and determine if it will even buy you anything.

Port aggregation does not load balance a single session across both paths. This means it will not improve a single file transfer. All the traffic will still only use 1 connection....even if you bonded 4 or 8 or whatever. Now if you had 2 sessions transferring files then it "might" use both paths. It is really stupid method and it does not consider other traffic when it selects so it can put all the session on 1 link and leave the other idle.

Really the only way this work somewhat ok is if you have a large number of machines transferring data to/from a central server. With large numbers the pure random selection tends to more or less balance.

This issue is part of the reason that enterprise level installs no longer use port aggregation. They have gone to 10g or larger ports to solve this. The only thing they use port aggregation for is to provide redundancy for a hardware failure and it needs a very special switch that can bond ports across separate physical switches.

 

[MattNA]

Seeing how you put it that way I'm definitely not going to do it.
I'm running both RJ45 ports on the NAS with jumbo frame rates.

I'm use to buying my routers refurbished. I'll wait and watch the price on the Asus rotor, check some reviews in hope they test LAG on a NAS.
Otherwise it's a dead subject to me.

 

[MattNA]

Just an update for anybody looking.

Jumbo frames. Ain't (can't do) doing that either.
Why? Your router has to support it too.

This one is two fold.
"Jumbo frame" refers to your MTU or packet size of data.
The bigger the packet size the better performance you see and the less work your CPU does.
Sound good so far, right? Just get a business type router that supports jumbo frames.

What's good for moving data around is bad for the internet. That's why home routers go to 1500 MTU. Jumbo rates go as high as 9000.
The other thing, jumbo frame rates were invented when we had like 300 Mhz processors and since 10 GB lines Jumbo rates are going the way or the dinosaurs.

I *think* things like LGA and jumbo frames have been modified for home networks or these features would be marketing BS.


EDIT:
I'M going to take back the "marketing BS" comment. Those features are there for the small business if they don't have a 10 GB service. I think.