Directly connecting two NAS boxes
I have two NAS units: a Synology and a QNAP. They are both connected to my router via a switch, but since both have spare Ethernet sockets, I guessed that they could also be connected directly, offering independence from the router and perhaps some speed improvement
I connected two sockets using a 2m length of Cat 6a straight-through cable. The LEDs at both ends lit and flashed correctly
But rather than enhancing the network as I had intended, I am now unable to connect to the router and one of my NAS units from a browser
I realise that my expectation may have been simplistic, but I don't know what to do now to fix the network. I will try giving IP addresses to the two new connectors, but otherwise I can't think what may help, beyond removing the new connector
Can someone please suggest something more intelligent?
networking router nas redundancy
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
|
show 2 more comments
I have two NAS units: a Synology and a QNAP. They are both connected to my router via a switch, but since both have spare Ethernet sockets, I guessed that they could also be connected directly, offering independence from the router and perhaps some speed improvement
I connected two sockets using a 2m length of Cat 6a straight-through cable. The LEDs at both ends lit and flashed correctly
But rather than enhancing the network as I had intended, I am now unable to connect to the router and one of my NAS units from a browser
I realise that my expectation may have been simplistic, but I don't know what to do now to fix the network. I will try giving IP addresses to the two new connectors, but otherwise I can't think what may help, beyond removing the new connector
Can someone please suggest something more intelligent?
networking router nas redundancy
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
1
The question is...what are you hoping to achieve by connecting them together? "Independence of the router" is an odd concept given that routers are actually 4-in-1s that are routers, firewalls, switches, and WAPs. Which part do you want to make it independent of? Secondly, how are you going to increase performance if it's independent of the router meaning how would other nodes access it?
– Allan
May 19 at 22:50
I am imagining a weekly backup from one unit to the other. It could be started on Friday night, leaving all other equipment powered off until Monday. Regarding the increase in performance, I hoped that a simple copper wire would have an advantage over a router path because of minimal overhead. Feel free to disabuse me of these notions if you will.
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:12
Assuming that both NAS' are connected to the same switch and both are GBit switches, you're not going to get an increase in performance; it's the same speed.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:18
@Allan: Perhaps;I was afraid of that. Can you explain why the configuration that I have isn't working, and suggest sonething that would fare better?
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:23
1
The simplest explanation is that it sounds like you didn't assign IPs to the two network ports you want to directly connect. It will perform the backup as you describe, there just won't be any benefit.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:29
|
show 2 more comments
I have two NAS units: a Synology and a QNAP. They are both connected to my router via a switch, but since both have spare Ethernet sockets, I guessed that they could also be connected directly, offering independence from the router and perhaps some speed improvement
I connected two sockets using a 2m length of Cat 6a straight-through cable. The LEDs at both ends lit and flashed correctly
But rather than enhancing the network as I had intended, I am now unable to connect to the router and one of my NAS units from a browser
I realise that my expectation may have been simplistic, but I don't know what to do now to fix the network. I will try giving IP addresses to the two new connectors, but otherwise I can't think what may help, beyond removing the new connector
Can someone please suggest something more intelligent?
networking router nas redundancy
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
I have two NAS units: a Synology and a QNAP. They are both connected to my router via a switch, but since both have spare Ethernet sockets, I guessed that they could also be connected directly, offering independence from the router and perhaps some speed improvement
I connected two sockets using a 2m length of Cat 6a straight-through cable. The LEDs at both ends lit and flashed correctly
But rather than enhancing the network as I had intended, I am now unable to connect to the router and one of my NAS units from a browser
I realise that my expectation may have been simplistic, but I don't know what to do now to fix the network. I will try giving IP addresses to the two new connectors, but otherwise I can't think what may help, beyond removing the new connector
Can someone please suggest something more intelligent?
networking router nas redundancy
networking router nas redundancy
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
asked May 19 at 22:43
Borodin
1178
1178
1
The question is...what are you hoping to achieve by connecting them together? "Independence of the router" is an odd concept given that routers are actually 4-in-1s that are routers, firewalls, switches, and WAPs. Which part do you want to make it independent of? Secondly, how are you going to increase performance if it's independent of the router meaning how would other nodes access it?
– Allan
May 19 at 22:50
I am imagining a weekly backup from one unit to the other. It could be started on Friday night, leaving all other equipment powered off until Monday. Regarding the increase in performance, I hoped that a simple copper wire would have an advantage over a router path because of minimal overhead. Feel free to disabuse me of these notions if you will.
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:12
Assuming that both NAS' are connected to the same switch and both are GBit switches, you're not going to get an increase in performance; it's the same speed.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:18
@Allan: Perhaps;I was afraid of that. Can you explain why the configuration that I have isn't working, and suggest sonething that would fare better?
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:23
1
The simplest explanation is that it sounds like you didn't assign IPs to the two network ports you want to directly connect. It will perform the backup as you describe, there just won't be any benefit.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:29
|
show 2 more comments
1
The question is...what are you hoping to achieve by connecting them together? "Independence of the router" is an odd concept given that routers are actually 4-in-1s that are routers, firewalls, switches, and WAPs. Which part do you want to make it independent of? Secondly, how are you going to increase performance if it's independent of the router meaning how would other nodes access it?
– Allan
May 19 at 22:50
I am imagining a weekly backup from one unit to the other. It could be started on Friday night, leaving all other equipment powered off until Monday. Regarding the increase in performance, I hoped that a simple copper wire would have an advantage over a router path because of minimal overhead. Feel free to disabuse me of these notions if you will.
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:12
Assuming that both NAS' are connected to the same switch and both are GBit switches, you're not going to get an increase in performance; it's the same speed.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:18
@Allan: Perhaps;I was afraid of that. Can you explain why the configuration that I have isn't working, and suggest sonething that would fare better?
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:23
1
The simplest explanation is that it sounds like you didn't assign IPs to the two network ports you want to directly connect. It will perform the backup as you describe, there just won't be any benefit.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:29
1
1
The question is...what are you hoping to achieve by connecting them together? "Independence of the router" is an odd concept given that routers are actually 4-in-1s that are routers, firewalls, switches, and WAPs. Which part do you want to make it independent of? Secondly, how are you going to increase performance if it's independent of the router meaning how would other nodes access it?
– Allan
May 19 at 22:50
The question is...what are you hoping to achieve by connecting them together? "Independence of the router" is an odd concept given that routers are actually 4-in-1s that are routers, firewalls, switches, and WAPs. Which part do you want to make it independent of? Secondly, how are you going to increase performance if it's independent of the router meaning how would other nodes access it?
– Allan
May 19 at 22:50
I am imagining a weekly backup from one unit to the other. It could be started on Friday night, leaving all other equipment powered off until Monday. Regarding the increase in performance, I hoped that a simple copper wire would have an advantage over a router path because of minimal overhead. Feel free to disabuse me of these notions if you will.
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:12
I am imagining a weekly backup from one unit to the other. It could be started on Friday night, leaving all other equipment powered off until Monday. Regarding the increase in performance, I hoped that a simple copper wire would have an advantage over a router path because of minimal overhead. Feel free to disabuse me of these notions if you will.
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:12
Assuming that both NAS' are connected to the same switch and both are GBit switches, you're not going to get an increase in performance; it's the same speed.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:18
Assuming that both NAS' are connected to the same switch and both are GBit switches, you're not going to get an increase in performance; it's the same speed.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:18
@Allan: Perhaps;I was afraid of that. Can you explain why the configuration that I have isn't working, and suggest sonething that would fare better?
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:23
@Allan: Perhaps;I was afraid of that. Can you explain why the configuration that I have isn't working, and suggest sonething that would fare better?
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:23
1
1
The simplest explanation is that it sounds like you didn't assign IPs to the two network ports you want to directly connect. It will perform the backup as you describe, there just won't be any benefit.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:29
The simplest explanation is that it sounds like you didn't assign IPs to the two network ports you want to directly connect. It will perform the backup as you describe, there just won't be any benefit.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:29
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I believe you have created a switching loop and need to look into the spanning tree algorithm to fix it or just get rid of the connection between the 2 units you have made.
https://www.dummies.com/programming/networking/cisco/effect-of-a-network-loop/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_Tree_Protocol
I am unsure how those nas units operate but for Windows OS styles you can do a backup over the network so what I would do is throw all my files onto one NAS then have that NAS make a redundant backup to the other. This way I always have a redundant backup for my stuff. As for connecting the two I am not sure what the best way to do this is.
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1324282%2fdirectly-connecting-two-nas-boxes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I believe you have created a switching loop and need to look into the spanning tree algorithm to fix it or just get rid of the connection between the 2 units you have made.
https://www.dummies.com/programming/networking/cisco/effect-of-a-network-loop/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_Tree_Protocol
I am unsure how those nas units operate but for Windows OS styles you can do a backup over the network so what I would do is throw all my files onto one NAS then have that NAS make a redundant backup to the other. This way I always have a redundant backup for my stuff. As for connecting the two I am not sure what the best way to do this is.
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
add a comment |
I believe you have created a switching loop and need to look into the spanning tree algorithm to fix it or just get rid of the connection between the 2 units you have made.
https://www.dummies.com/programming/networking/cisco/effect-of-a-network-loop/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_Tree_Protocol
I am unsure how those nas units operate but for Windows OS styles you can do a backup over the network so what I would do is throw all my files onto one NAS then have that NAS make a redundant backup to the other. This way I always have a redundant backup for my stuff. As for connecting the two I am not sure what the best way to do this is.
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
add a comment |
I believe you have created a switching loop and need to look into the spanning tree algorithm to fix it or just get rid of the connection between the 2 units you have made.
https://www.dummies.com/programming/networking/cisco/effect-of-a-network-loop/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_Tree_Protocol
I am unsure how those nas units operate but for Windows OS styles you can do a backup over the network so what I would do is throw all my files onto one NAS then have that NAS make a redundant backup to the other. This way I always have a redundant backup for my stuff. As for connecting the two I am not sure what the best way to do this is.
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
I believe you have created a switching loop and need to look into the spanning tree algorithm to fix it or just get rid of the connection between the 2 units you have made.
https://www.dummies.com/programming/networking/cisco/effect-of-a-network-loop/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_Tree_Protocol
I am unsure how those nas units operate but for Windows OS styles you can do a backup over the network so what I would do is throw all my files onto one NAS then have that NAS make a redundant backup to the other. This way I always have a redundant backup for my stuff. As for connecting the two I am not sure what the best way to do this is.
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
edited Dec 5 at 8:40
Makyen
133117
133117
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
answered Nov 18 at 16:43
Jay Today
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1324282%2fdirectly-connecting-two-nas-boxes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The question is...what are you hoping to achieve by connecting them together? "Independence of the router" is an odd concept given that routers are actually 4-in-1s that are routers, firewalls, switches, and WAPs. Which part do you want to make it independent of? Secondly, how are you going to increase performance if it's independent of the router meaning how would other nodes access it?
– Allan
May 19 at 22:50
I am imagining a weekly backup from one unit to the other. It could be started on Friday night, leaving all other equipment powered off until Monday. Regarding the increase in performance, I hoped that a simple copper wire would have an advantage over a router path because of minimal overhead. Feel free to disabuse me of these notions if you will.
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:12
Assuming that both NAS' are connected to the same switch and both are GBit switches, you're not going to get an increase in performance; it's the same speed.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:18
@Allan: Perhaps;I was afraid of that. Can you explain why the configuration that I have isn't working, and suggest sonething that would fare better?
– Borodin
May 19 at 23:23
1
The simplest explanation is that it sounds like you didn't assign IPs to the two network ports you want to directly connect. It will perform the backup as you describe, there just won't be any benefit.
– Allan
May 19 at 23:29