Hardware requirements for 2x2.5G ports.

[darkcg79]

Hello,
I'm really trying to evaluate if a Lockerstore 4 would be great for my purposes (4K video editing at an hobbyist level) with a passion for speed.
Reading the specs, the Lockerstore 4 AS6604T has 2x2.5G ethernet ports. Considering I'm not really experienced on networking equipment (and I don't want to spend huge numbers on that), I'm wondering what kind of hardware I need to use it at its fullest.

If I'm not wrong (please correct me), in link aggregation mode I can reach 5Gb/s with the 2 ports. But which kind of Modem / Router do I need? One with 5Gb/s ports?
10Gb/s ports? Which network card? I suspect one with 2.5G ports only would be uncapable of using the whole bandwidth of the link aggregation, right?

Also, how do I know how much speed I need? Does the Lockerstor 4 in RAID 5 configuration would even use that speed?
Thanks for the eventual answers.

EDIT: I would prefer a consumer unified modem/router rathen than buying a separate switch, if possible. I know Asus has one which supports 10Gb Ethernet ports (the Asus RT-AX89X AX6000)

[father.mande]

Hi,

Welcome in the forum ...
1) link aggregation
... remember that it's not 2,5 + 2,5 = 5 Gbs, aggregation use multiple way (in this case 2) to exchange between two (or more) systems (system = NAS, PC, switch or whatever) BUT one flow use ONLY one link ... you must have 2 flow at the same time to use the 2 links and more you have independent flow best is the usage of the aggregation ... BUT this have a cost and the real throughput is not the addition of the two links ...
aggregation is very useful if you have lot of clients working at same time with the server. In some case managing the two link independently can offer better result (no management, no overhead, no link change) ...
Throughput is difficult to imagine ... due to all the cases possible BUT lot of clients with lots of exchange can go up to a maximum of 4+ Gbs a single client with one like ... can expect to 2+ Gbs (remember that overhead exist in any network due to protocol)

2) the network throughput is important but it's nothing compare to the disk speed of your client and server ... so if you use SATA3 interface (for ex.) each disk can at the best deliver 6 Gbs theoretically (if your controller, CPU and memory don't slow down you exchange) ...

... so using a switch (with aggregation) is the best to share the network with the best throughput ... so with potential multiple clients using gigabits, 2,5Gbs ...
... 2,5 Gbs (PCIe-x1) can be added to your PC (some with two plug) but not sure (depends of the O.S.) that driver is optimized for (Windows is not know to be the best ... all the time ... )
... using Raid5 is a good idea for security ... even in some case using one disk as single as a temporary place for editing one video ... can be better (no management of Raid and no more checksum and multiple access to blocks)

I think that AS6004T is a very good choice for your requirement ...
if you are alone to use it ... try without link aggregation ... aggregation can add complexity without a gain ... if you arrive at network saturation ... at this time it can be easy to try to upgrade for starting buying a good 2,5 Gbs card for your working station is enough.
Also have a fine look to disks and enough memory ... high network with slow disks or insufficient memory ... generate bad result.

Don't hesitate to contact Asustor for helping you to choice the best configuration ... they have lot of experience and know client with the same constraints as you.

Philippe.

[darkcg79]

Hi,

Welcome in the forum ...
1) link aggregation
... remember that it's not 2,5 + 2,5 = 5 Gbs, aggregation use multiple way (in this case 2) to exchange between two (or more) systems (system = NAS, PC, switch or whatever) BUT one flow use ONLY one link ... you must have 2 flow at the same time to use the 2 links and more you have independent flow best is the usage of the aggregation ... BUT this have a cost and the real throughput is not the addition of the two links ...
aggregation is very useful if you have lot of clients working at same time with the server. In some case managing the two link independently can offer better result (no management, no overhead, no link change) ...
Throughput is difficult to imagine ... due to all the cases possible BUT lot of clients with lots of exchange can go up to a maximum of 4+ Gbs a single client with one like ... can expect to 2+ Gbs (remember that overhead exist in any network due to protocol)

2) the network throughput is important but it's nothing compare to the disk speed of your client and server ... so if you use SATA3 interface (for ex.) each disk can at the best deliver 6 Gbs theoretically (if your controller, CPU and memory don't slow down you exchange) ...

... so using a switch (with aggregation) is the best to share the network with the best throughput ... so with potential multiple clients using gigabits, 2,5Gbs ...
... 2,5 Gbs (PCIe-x1) can be added to your PC (some with two plug) but not sure (depends of the O.S.) that driver is optimized for (Windows is not know to be the best ... all the time ... )
... using Raid5 is a good idea for security ... even in some case using one disk as single as a temporary place for editing one video ... can be better (no management of Raid and no more checksum and multiple access to blocks)

I think that AS6004T is a very good choice for your requirement ...
if you are alone to use it ... try without link aggregation ... aggregation can add complexity without a gain ... if you arrive at network saturation ... at this time it can be easy to try to upgrade for starting buying a good 2,5 Gbs card for your working station is enough.
Also have a fine look to disks and enough memory ... high network with slow disks or insufficient memory ... generate bad result.

Don't hesitate to contact Asustor for helping you to choice the best configuration ... they have lot of experience and know client with the same constraints as you.

Philippe.

Hello Philippe, thank you very much for your answer! Effectively I was not fully understanding that Link Aggregation wouldn't use full bandwidth for just one user.