Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
dual link gigabit ethernet cards for extra performance?
Last post Wed, Dec 02 2015 by 10us, 13 replies.
Options
Go to last post
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 11:36
by JayDeeM
Joined on Tue, Aug 18 2009, Posts 26

Hi Guys,

I recently spoke to a PC specalist who builds DAW's for a living, and he mentioned that for his VEP clients he tends to recommend dedicated Intel PCIE ethernet cards. According to him they lower the cpu costs and posibillities of crackling on big sessions, as they're more efficient and capable than most onboard lan connections.

Is it worth the trouble, has anyone got any experience?

Cheers,

Joe

Joris de Man - Composer | Sound Designer
www.jorisdeman.com

Nuendo 7.1 on iMac i7 with 32gb, El Capitan, 2 PC slaves (i7) with 32gb and 24gb each, VEP6, Apollo Quad
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 18:14
by cm
Joined on Fri, Dec 20 2002, vienna, Posts 9111

often a separate NIC (ethernet PCIe card) is a good idea since many manufacturers are using *low budget* ethernet controllers on board.

such controllers leave much of the work (buffering, TCP checksums, ect) to the driver, in fact the operating system.

more advanced (and more expensive) controllers do this work in hardware on the PCIe card so leaving more CPU resources (and I/O operations) available to the operating system.

 

dual port cards (often used with servers) _can_ allow doubling the bandwidth - this is a feature called teaming which is provided by the respective driver (synchronizing the traffic from both lines).

however there are different configurations for teaming, some do only provide failover (if one line fails the second still works) and the adjecent NIC as well as the switch between both dual-NICs also has to support such a teaming - more precisely call it link aggregation.

 

so i would recomment to leave selecting all involved devices to a specialist or reading the respective product descriptions very attentively.

and remember: a CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just four hours ...
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 18:44
by mohurwitzmusic
Joined on Tue, Sep 07 2010, Posts 297

What about the built-in dual Intel I210 Ethernet controllers on the ASUS P9X79-E WS? My new computer is using this mobo. I've dedicated one port for Remote Desktop and internet sharing and the other for VEPro.

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P9X79E_WS/

For years I have had a problem where if I leave a session connected for a while (8+ hours) eventually I get a weird breakup that requires a restart. I thought my new mobo would fix this problem but it did not. The problem most frequently happens when I leave a session up overnight and come back to it in the morning.

www.midikinetics.com
Lemur touch controllers for composers and music producers.
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 19:00
by cm
Joined on Fri, Dec 20 2002, vienna, Posts 9111

the Intel I210 is one of the *better ones* (eg. supports checksum offloading, ECC error correction in buffer memory, ect).

 

regarding your breakup issue: go to properties of your network controller, watch out for a TAB labeled *Power Management* and uncheck the *Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power* option - this may help.

 

and remember: a CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just four hours ...
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 19:22
by mohurwitzmusic
Joined on Tue, Sep 07 2010, Posts 297

Wow, thanks! I dont' see that particular setting. I have:

- Respond to ARP requests without waking system (checked)

- Respond to NS requests without waking system (checked)

- Energy Efficient Ethernet (checked)

- Reduce Link speed during standby (checked)

- Wake on Magic Packet (checked)

- Wake on Pattern Match (checked)

- Wake on Magic Packet from power off state (unchecked)

- Wake on Link Settings (uncheked)

www.midikinetics.com
Lemur touch controllers for composers and music producers.
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 19:35
by cm
Joined on Fri, Dec 20 2002, vienna, Posts 9111

unfortunately i'm not familiar with the details of this driver dialog.

i would try to uncheck

mohurwitzmusic wrote:
- Energy Efficient Ethernet (checked)

- Reduce Link speed during standby (checked)

these two apear to be related to energy saving and a wakeup might fail (eg.. the adjecent NIC doesn't properly recognize the wakeup)

hth, cm

 

edit: uncheck on involved NICs on both computers ...

 

and remember: a CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just four hours ...
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 20:55
by mohurwitzmusic
Joined on Tue, Sep 07 2010, Posts 297

Thanks you are very helpful! I am going to try this tonight. This has been a problem for years.

www.midikinetics.com
Lemur touch controllers for composers and music producers.
Posted on Fri, Jan 24 2014 22:13
by JayDeeM
Joined on Tue, Aug 18 2009, Posts 26

Hey CM,

Thanks for your reply.

Is there any issue with differing ip's on team bonded network ports?

I understand that VE Pro connects to one network port/address at a time; but I assume that a bonded port has a shared ip address?

Also, though I've read that bandwith saturation isn't an issue, I've seen cpu increases and spikes on heavy sessions, eventhough cpu use on the slave isn't particularly high...(but higher on the slave).

So, would linking/bonding on each machine be worth it?

Cheers,

joe

Joris de Man - Composer | Sound Designer
www.jorisdeman.com

Nuendo 7.1 on iMac i7 with 32gb, El Capitan, 2 PC slaves (i7) with 32gb and 24gb each, VEP6, Apollo Quad
Posted on Sat, Jan 25 2014 07:24
by cm
Joined on Fri, Dec 20 2002, vienna, Posts 9111

correct - the driver applies a single IP to both NICs. however each network link will still have its own MAC-address, that's why i mentioned dependency on driver and switch because the ARP (address resolution protocol) comes into the game.

one link has to send the first request package and the switch *remembers* the MAC address from which it has been sent.

now if link aggregation is not supported by all involved devices the following responses goes only to this MAC address ... the result is that again only one link is used for communication.

 

also correct: bandwidth saturation is usually not an issue, a single gigabit network link should be able to transport up to 350 channels (44.1 kHz 32bit), so if nothing else but a VE PRO connect has to be *shipped* across this link it isn't worth the efforts required.

and remember: a CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just four hours ...
Posted on Sat, Jan 25 2014 16:28
by mohurwitzmusic
Joined on Tue, Sep 07 2010, Posts 297

Well no breakup this morning! Thank you again!

www.midikinetics.com
Lemur touch controllers for composers and music producers.
Posted on Sat, Nov 21 2015 21:42
by lillosnx
Joined on Wed, Aug 18 2010, Posts 23

Originally Posted by: mohurwitzmusic Go to Quoted Post

What about the built-in dual Intel I210 Ethernet controllers on the ASUS P9X79-E WS? My new computer is using this mobo. I've dedicated one port for Remote Desktop and internet sharing and the other for VEPro.

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P9X79E_WS/

For years I have had a problem where if I leave a session connected for a while (8+ hours) eventually I get a weird breakup that requires a restart. I thought my new mobo would fix this problem but it did not. The problem most frequently happens when I leave a session up overnight and come back to it in the morning.

Hello mohurwitzmusic!

Can you please explain to me how exactly you dedicated one port for Remote Desktop and internet sharing and the other for VEPro? I dont know how to do this with my p9x79-ws. Thank you very much.

Posted on Wed, Dec 02 2015 21:47
by 10us
Joined on Tue, Jan 01 2013, Posts 42
Originally Posted by: cm Go to Quoted Post
correct - the driver applies a single IP to both NICs. however each network link will still have its own MAC-address, that's why i mentioned dependency on driver and switch because the ARP (address resolution protocol) comes into the game.
one link has to send the first request package and the switch *remembers* the MAC address from which it has been sent.
now if link aggregation is not supported by all involved devices the following responses goes only to this MAC address ... the result is that again only one link is used for communication.

also correct: bandwidth saturation is usually not an issue, a single gigabit network link should be able to transport up to 350 channels (44.1 kHz 32bit), so if nothing else but a VE PRO connect has to be *shipped* across this link it isn't worth the efforts required.


True. Server teaming can send on both links, but most teaming modes can't only receive on one. For true load-balancing over nics you would need a link aggregation which you have to configure on both the server and a managed switch.

The offload features on a NIC are hard to understand and can easily do more harm. Quality drivers always helps. A more serious ethernet switch also.

As stated, you can do a lot of i/o over gigabit.
|i7-6800K|Win10 pro x64|Cubase Pro 9.5.40|Vienna Ensemble Pro 6|RME Fireface UC|UAD2 Octo|
Posted on Wed, Dec 02 2015 21:51
by 10us
Joined on Tue, Jan 01 2013, Posts 42
Originally Posted by: lillosnx Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mohurwitzmusic Go to Quoted Post

What about the built-in dual Intel I210 Ethernet controllers on the ASUS P9X79-E WS? My new computer is using this mobo. I've dedicated one port for Remote Desktop and internet sharing and the other for VEPro.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P9X79E_WS/
For years I have had a problem where if I leave a session connected for a while (8+ hours) eventually I get a weird breakup that requires a restart. I thought my new mobo would fix this problem but it did not. The problem most frequently happens when I leave a session up overnight and come back to it in the morning.

Hello mohurwitzmusic!
Can you please explain to me how exactly you dedicated one port for Remote Desktop and internet sharing and the other for VEPro? I dont know how to do this with my p9x79-ws. Thank you very much.


The only simpel way would be cross-connecting the extra interfaces to eachother. Use a cross-cable and configure a different IP subnet on these interfaces. But also, there is no need to.
|i7-6800K|Win10 pro x64|Cubase Pro 9.5.40|Vienna Ensemble Pro 6|RME Fireface UC|UAD2 Octo|
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.