Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fibre channel connection.
- Thread starter lucaspkm
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. 
FC is capable of a Point to Point connection via N_ports (FC-P2P). I presume you mean to use copper rather than also have to buy an SFP Transciever and optical cables to keep costs lower.
But I'm curious; what exactly are you doing?
And any particular reason you're not considering 10G Ethernet?
I ask, as keeping it connected via copper, the pricing is essentially identical (Myricom makes 10G cards that work under OS X; single port cards go for $595USD).
FC is capable of a Point to Point connection via N_ports (FC-P2P). I presume you mean to use copper rather than also have to buy an SFP Transciever and optical cables to keep costs lower.
But I'm curious; what exactly are you doing?
And any particular reason you're not considering 10G Ethernet?
I ask, as keeping it connected via copper, the pricing is essentially identical (Myricom makes 10G cards that work under OS X; single port cards go for $595USD).
Yes.
FC is capable of a Point to Point connection via N_ports (FC-P2P). I presume you mean to use copper rather than also have to buy an SFP Transciever and optical cables to keep costs lower.
But I'm curious; what exactly are you doing?
And any particular reason you're not considering 10G Ethernet?
I ask, as keeping it connected via copper, the pricing is essentially identical (Myricom makes 10G cards that work under OS X; single port cards go for $595USD).
because my boss bought them years ago and not using them.
Actually, switches aren't that expensive any more. I just bought a 24 port HP (ProCurve V1810-G24) managed switch that supports link aggregation for 250€. The total switching capacity is 48Gb/s and you can link up to 8 ports.
It might actually be cheaper to use link aggregation with some dual or quad port GbE cards than going fibre channel or 10GbE.
Edit: Most Intel server NICS don't actually require a switch btw. so directly connecting several ports and linking them is possible.
Thanks. Looking at this switch now.
Just gotta figure out if both Mac OSX and Windows 7 support 4 or 8 port aggregation with some extra NICs
Windows definitely does support it with Intel NICs (Intel calls it teaming btw.). I'm not sure about teaming the two internal ports of the Mac Pro with an additional card, though.
BTW: What are you trying to achieve? Can your computers actually make use of a 4Gb/s or 8Gb/s connection? I mean we are talking of transfer rates in the range of 400 to 800MB/s.
Upon further research...it seems Mac OS support LACP
but it is not the type that will aggregate ports for a "single"
client-to-server TCP connection......It will only use one port
in each direction if a switch is used.........no matter how
many ports are link aggregated.
Yes, this is exactly what I'd like. I do DCC work and regularly need to transfer 200GB-1TB project directories between workstations. The RAIDs in each box will pull around 500MB/s each.
Anyone know if this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106043
Will work with this:
http://www.small-tree.com/Articles.asp?ID=199
?
Last edited:
I'm a little confused here, so when linking the two onboard ports of the Pro, you don't get a 2Gb/s connection, rather than a 1Gb/s full duplex with one port getting input at 1Gb/s and the other one outputting at 1Gb/s at the same time?
If that is what it is, I'll have to get my dealer on the phone to cancel the order on the switch!
Where did you get that information?
Not sure, but almost 100% certain
(based on systems engineering = newer part would be derived off of the older one). The only exception I can think of would be some form of firmware authentication (what vendors can do to lock their products with either software or other hardware).Let me explain. Though the card is Intel, the chip used isn't stated (2x possible), and the drivers are for the 82598EB (the others is the 82599EB; there is the 82597EX as well, but it's PCI-X, not PCIe ). But Intel's drivers = one file that operates with both P/N's.
The only difference besides date of release, is newer features supported in the 82599EB.
But why not get the card from Small Tree or Myricom (I'm assuming you don't have the 10G E card on hand)?
If you do have the Intel card you linked, give it a shot. BTW, Intel does offer FreeBSD drivers, so those might be worth testing as well.
Because the Intel costs half as much. I've never heard of or have experience with Myricom...
Kraken? I never sent you a photo, so who did?Well, lets see what the all-knowing data kraken knows about this.
I don't know if the statement about OS X is true or not (never tried 10G Ethernet on a MP at all). Seems a tad weird to me, but it could be true (this is Apple we're talking about...).
Then again, the Small Tree rep is also trying to sell him something...
Kraken? I never sent you a photo, so who did?
Actually, I was referring to google, but I like how you picked up on that.
Then again, the Small Tree rep is also trying to sell him something...
That's exactly what I thought! So I will continue with my google research.
Edit:
"Link aggregation allows you to aggregate or combine multiple physical links that connect your Mac to a link aggregation device (a switch or another Mac) into a single logical link. The result is a fault-tolerant link with a bandwidth equal to the sum of the bandwidths of the physical links.
Mac OS X uses the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) to negotiate the link aggregation. LACP must be supported on all link aggregation devices involved."
Source: Apple
Seems as if it will be seen as a single 2Gb/s connection.
Last edited:
Didn't think about Google (it's more of a Hydra to me anyway, as one head hasn't a clue what the other is doing, and the data collection would be the stomach - none of the heads have a clue what's going on there at all).Actually, I was referring to google, but I like how you picked up on that.
Yeah, I was one of those kids that was into Greek Mythology.
It's a contradictory statement to me; LACP support that doesn't work.That's exactly what I thought! So I will continue with my google research.
The only thing I can think of that could have validity, is if the switch does not support LACP. But that's not a problem with OS X, but poor planning/hardware selection on the part of the architect/analyst doing the design (i.e. trying to use an existing switch that the specs weren't investigated properly, just assumed support existed).
Didn't think about Google (it's more of a Hydra to me anyway, as one head hasn't a clue what the other is doing, and the data collection would be the stomach - none of the heads have a clue what's going on there at all).
Thou shalt not question Google!
Believe me, sooner or later they will come for you!
Unfortunately NIC teaming/bonding with OS X isn't a big deal on google, but from what I've read so far it does work as I expect it to be.
I found a statement of a guy who teamed 8 NIC's on an XServe resulting in transfer rates of 300MB/s (apparently his storage was limiting the speed).
Anyway, I think we are a "little" off topic here.
They're definitely greedy (not just data, but they make money on analyzing what they pull in, such as marketing data), and seriously invade people's privacy in the process (along with Facebook and similar sites).Thou shalt not question Google!
Believe me, sooner or later they will come for you!
Good to know.
Try this for thought; think of a 2 + 2 configuration (2x ports used to double the bandwidth <or more>, and another identical setup for Fault Tolerance, each on it's own switch). Such a configuration would be desirable for things like SAN and High Availability Clusters.
As per off topic, maybe a mod would split this off into it's own thread.