Fibre channel connection.

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by lucaspkm, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. lucaspkm macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    #1
    Hi guys if i have Apple Dual-Channel 4Gb Fibre Channel PCI Express Card x 02 quantity and i plug into 2 different macpro can it be link to each other?
     
  2. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #2
    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).
     
  3. lucaspkm thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    #3
    because my boss bought them years ago and not using them.
     
  4. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #4
    Makes sense to find a use for them then. :D
     
  5. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #5
    May i piggy back on this question?

    Can one connect a Windows 7 machine and a Mac Pro directly via either Fibre or 10g?

    Looking for the fastest connection between two machines without spending a boat load on a switch.

    GigE is a bit pokey.
     
  6. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    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.
     
  7. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #7
    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
     
  8. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #8

    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.
     
  9. beaker7, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010

    beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #9
    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

    ?
     
  10. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    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?
     
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    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. ;) :p

    BTW, Intel does offer FreeBSD drivers, so those might be worth testing as well.
     
  12. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #12
    That's what I was told by Small Tree.
     
  13. beaker7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #13
    Because the Intel costs half as much. I've never heard of or have experience with Myricom...
     
  14. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Well, lets see what the all-knowing data kraken knows about this. :D
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    Kraken? I never sent you a photo, so who did? :eek: :D

    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... :eek: ;) :D :p
     
  16. Transporteur, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010

    Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Actually, I was referring to google, but I like how you picked up on that. :D

    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.
     
  17. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    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). :p

    Yeah, I was one of those kids that was into Greek Mythology. :D

    It's a contradictory statement to me; LACP support that doesn't work. :confused:

    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).
     
  18. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Thou shalt not question Google!
    Believe me, sooner or later they will come for you! :D

    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. :eek:
     
  19. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #19
    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).

    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. :)
     

Share This Page