I’ve got a network setup consisting of 3 proxmox servers of which two have a 10Gbe interface. All interfaces are RJ45 copper ports.
So far I’ve got two qnap switches with 2 10Gbe and 5 2.5Gbe portss. They are connected to each other via one of the 10Gbe ports, and one of the servers on the other one.
This setup is working flawlessly, iperf measurements show 9.4gbit/s in both directions.
Recently I tried to increase my network for future expansion and bought a trendnet switch with 5 10Gbe ports.
Weird problems occurred and as they were also described in some amazon reviews I returned the switch and bought another one, this time a 4port 10Gbe switch from ubiquity.
Again there are problems. This time one direction seems to be at 10gbit/s as expected while the other direction (between the same two servers) is limited to 1gbit/s. The connection to the third server shows the same problem (one direction 2.5gbit/s and the other one limited to 1gbit/s).
All wires are connected correctly and as there is no problem on the qnap switches I do believe that there is no hardware problem on the cable/NIC side.
However I’m not sure if this is this just bad luck or some deep network problem I don’t understand.
Can you draw a picture of how you have all 3 switches connected with all of the wires? I am suspicious that you are creating a switching loop or spanning tree isn’t picking the optimal link on accident so I’m curious.
So then it doesn’t work across the ubiquity switch just to double check? If so, you will need to enable jumbo frames on that for sure and it is not enabled by default and that could also explain the throughput as it is having to fragment then defragment the frames to cross the switch or iperf is using MSS to determine that it can only send 1500 byte frames, your slower speed is about line rate for 1500 byte frames no matter the speed of the actual link.
ETA: you can verify this by pinging with a large size and setting the “do not fragment” flag, so something like ‘ping -s 2000 -M do ip.addr ’ on Linux, windows uses different flags.
It does not work. Additionally, the ubiquity switch does not sync with 10gbit/s to one of the qnap switches (I tested with different cables and ports, but the led on the qnap stays orange, indicating connection speed lower than 10gbit/s)
As I’m maybe returning the switch due to the problems I hesitate to register it to access settings. Jumbo frames settings could actually be the solution. But with the problem mentioned in the first paragraph I’m not sure. A 300€ device should just work IMHO…
Thanks for the suggestion with ping, I will test it.
Oh yeah for sure, every time I’m like “it can’t be spanning tree” it is spanning tree. Do you mean copper vs fiber? LC connectors can carry a variety of speeds but generally yeah I try to use fiber or DAC cables which are shielded wherever I can.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
Rules:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it’s not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
Can you draw a picture of how you have all 3 switches connected with all of the wires? I am suspicious that you are creating a switching loop or spanning tree isn’t picking the optimal link on accident so I’m curious.
It’s just two switches.
Server 1 — 10Gbe — ubiquity switch — 10Gbe — qnap switch — 10Gbe — server 2.
So then it doesn’t work across the ubiquity switch just to double check? If so, you will need to enable jumbo frames on that for sure and it is not enabled by default and that could also explain the throughput as it is having to fragment then defragment the frames to cross the switch or iperf is using MSS to determine that it can only send 1500 byte frames, your slower speed is about line rate for 1500 byte frames no matter the speed of the actual link.
ETA: you can verify this by pinging with a large size and setting the “do not fragment” flag, so something like ‘ping -s 2000 -M do ip.addr ’ on Linux, windows uses different flags.
Yes,
It does not work. Additionally, the ubiquity switch does not sync with 10gbit/s to one of the qnap switches (I tested with different cables and ports, but the led on the qnap stays orange, indicating connection speed lower than 10gbit/s)
As I’m maybe returning the switch due to the problems I hesitate to register it to access settings. Jumbo frames settings could actually be the solution. But with the problem mentioned in the first paragraph I’m not sure. A 300€ device should just work IMHO…
Thanks for the suggestion with ping, I will test it.
I was thinking the same thing. Spanning tree is love. Spanning tree is life…when deployed correctly.
Alternatively I’m thinking noise, as I’ve seen that in 10gig connections a few times, which is why I prefer LC fiber where possible.
Oh yeah for sure, every time I’m like “it can’t be spanning tree” it is spanning tree. Do you mean copper vs fiber? LC connectors can carry a variety of speeds but generally yeah I try to use fiber or DAC cables which are shielded wherever I can.