@broca, since you are having to get another card, I would consider ordering an Intel X550-T2. You would have dual 10 Gbps ports that are backwards compatible to 5 Gbps, 2.5 Gbps, 1 Gbps, and I believe 100 Mbps. The AQC107 and AQC113 are also backwards compatible to those speeds. A big bonus with the Intel card is you should not have to initialize it after every reboot. _________________ Optiplex 7060 with i7-8700, 32GB Ram, X710-T4L, i226 four port, & an AQC113 M2 slot card. DDWRT 63600 & Adguard Home.
GL.iNET GL-BE9300 Flint 3 with OpenWRT as an AP
GL.iNET GL-MT6000 Flint 2 with OpenWRT as an AP
GL INET GL-BE3600 Slate 7 Travel Router with OpenWRT as a travel router
2 R7800's (DDWRT Build r60586) Not in use
3 R7000's (DDWRT build r62268) one used as a bridge
WRT54G-TM not in use
But let me summarize what I already said in the other threads.
These are enterprise cards that are not intended for private use.
They are designed to be mounted in well-ventilated server chassis (which is why they do not have their own fans, even though they require active cooling).
Original Intel RETAIL cards are very difficult to acquire and very expensive.
Bulk and OEM cards have absolutely zero support from Intel.
OEM cards have customized firmware with limited functionality.
It is not always possible to flash the original firmware onto these cards, and even when it is possible, it is not easy (cml750 has already had this experience).
There are COUNTERFEITS of older Intel cards such as the x550.
The 10Gbit cards ALL run hot.
The best chances are with current cards that use the scaled-down process nodes and consume less power accordingly.
Having to load drivers yourself is no problem at all, as I have explained.
This has been common practice for decades. For example, I also had to load drivers myself on my Raspberry PI for my retrofitted RTC.
another thought - the 10g would be between my DD-WRT router and TrueNAS server. I can bound multiple 2.5g too. Any drawbacks? I never tried bounding before, some help would be appreciate.
@ho1Aetoo, in another post, you mentioned assign vlan to all ports in DD-WRT is not a bad idea. Do I tag the LAGG members with the same vlan? please advise.
By the way, I want to learn how to use swconfig, yet unable to find any comprehensive how to or doucmentation on it. Please advise where I can find them.
Best
With x86, Link Aggregation or bonding is very simple.
You take two network interfaces, e.g., eth0 and eth1, and create a bonding interface bond0 – done.
eth0 and eth1 may then no longer be used (you have to set them to unbridged).
With bond0, you can do whatever you want, e.g., add it to br0.
Of course, the other side must be able to do the same. _________________ Quickstart guides:
@ho1Aetoo
Do you mean I have to unbridge the bond0 members before I add it to br0?
Haven't talk about the Netgear R9000 I have. It is my current DD-WRT router waiting to be replaced.
I was tried to set up bond0 as a proof of concept and failed miserably. Forum searching leaded to you old post about R9000. Now I understand why R9000 behave so differently and not all the LAN port shown up in the Networking tab. I see that I should set up VLAN first and the bond0 with VLAN. Hence I like to learn swconfig while I am not building my X86_64 DD-WRT (sad story, I have to restart the project, buying different hardware, etc.)
Best
I'm talking about an x86 now!
The r9000 is a completely different story; it has several integrated switches, etc.
and we are writing here in the x86 forum
The order doesn't really matter.
As I said...
You take two network interfaces (for example, eth0 + eth1)
And use the two interfaces to create a bonding interface bond0
eth0 and eth1 must then be set to unbridged; they must no longer be bridged or used with anything.
From now on, bond0 is the interface you work with.
Add bond0 to br0 so that the LA ports are in the default LAN.
If you configure it on the R9000 as described (On the R9000, these are ports eth1+eth2), you can still use the WAN port and 1 LAN port (as LA).
The other ports can then no longer be used.
Theoretically, this can be solved using VLANs and creating the bonding interface on VLANs.
I described this in a thread somewhere, but never received a reply as to whether it works.
It's also not that easy...
