Can two network cards work for me?


Overclocked Like A Mother
8 Jul 2002
Hey all,

I am thinking about something.

Since my family and use my private FTP server quite extensively, the bandwidth tends to bog down if I am using my internal network here. And on top of that, My email and Web and File server are all out of the same tower.

My LAN setup is all with gigabit switches, and gigabit network cards. One switch is then connected to the router and it's connected to the modem. That's my connnection to the outside world.

If I was to put a second 10/100 network PCI card in the server tower, and dedicate it to the FTP/WEB/Email servers, by connecting it to the router directly. and just dedicate the gigabit network to my LAN. I would issue and IP address to the new card and point the servers to that card, and keep the file server pointed to the IP of the gig card, would this work? Would the FTP performance take a hit when I am on the LAN? Would this be even worthwhile?


well I for one think the answer is yes....

Now I shall wait for others to disagree with me, but I would go for it myself (after all if nothing else you can find out "the hard way" if it works!)
Seems to work from where I stand, and could improve on NLB if it's on a different interface as well.
Iw ould work, but the only issue Id see is trying to use the computer name to connect locally. Not sure how the computer name would be linked to the IP when there's two. you could use \\ipaddress or add the computer name and correct IP to your host file.
Well, When I do call up the server, I have always used the \\ ipaddress, So technically it wouldn't change much for me. The IP address itself would stay the same for the mapped drives. I am adding a new netcard/ipaddress and connecting it to the router directly instead of the gigswitch that original net card is hooked to.

Hey KC, what does NLB mean?

Thanks all,

I think he just wants to dedicate a NIC for the public traffic and the gigabit for the LAN.

So, Heeter you should have no problems. A friend did this and as long as you use the IP then it will work.

Should of realized what you were talking about,

AM, Thanks, that is exactly what I am trying to achieve. Only wondered if the NIC bandwidth/speed would still drop if the gig is in use during the meantime. "Cause that is what I am trying to fix now.

Thanks Guys,

I don't see why it wouldn't work. My two AIX servers at work have 4 NICs in them each.
Have you confirmed the lag is in the network and not the server?

If the congestion is in the network it will help. If the congestion is in the server (HD, low RAM, single core CPU, older slow FSB, etc) it may not solve the problem.
Good Question, Lee,

Although I don't think that it would be the server itself.

Specs of Server:

PIII733, 1500Megs Ram PC133, FSB 133
7HD's each 250gig 16megcache7200 - 2 sets of mirrored raid, 1holds OS, 2 other singles.

I think that the Server is okay spec wise.

That sounds fine for a pure file server, etc. There isn't much CPU required in that. Then again, it also depends on the apps that are the servers. More high level language apps like Java/C# chew up more memory than a C or C++ application.

I'm curious, you stated in the original post your family uses an FTP server, then I believe (not sure) you stated it was a file share. Which is it? I'm thinking file share because of subsequent posts about mounting, but want to be clear.

Also, I'm not too sure on how accurate the ctrl+alt+delete Networking tab is as I've never really tested it, but, during peak times, does it say your network is max'd? I mean 100MB/s is a big ass bandwidth. Maybe I'll test on my machines later the impact of file sharing via Windows. But your specific diagnosis would be best!

Edit: I only wonder about the file sharing itself as I was developing an application at work (one of my few Windows apps) for my personal needs (shhhhhhh). I was compiling on a remote machine that had Visual C++. I connected to it via Terminal Services. Now, normally, it's pretty quick. But, when I had all the project on my local machine (via a mount), it was slow as ****. Granted, the remote machine was in PA, and I was in NYC, but this is a Fortune 100 corporate WAN. I'm gonna have to look up windows file sharing benchmarks if thats what you're doing.
Good Question, Lee,

Although I don't think that it would be the server itself.

Specs of Server:

PIII733, 1500Megs Ram PC133, FSB 133
7HD's each 250gig 16megcache7200 - 2 sets of mirrored raid, 1holds OS, 2 other singles.

I think that the Server is okay spec wise.

Specwise you should be OK, but performance of the specs is another thing.

I would run the perfmon utility just to get some baseline numbers on your hardware.

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Latest member