Would not the data still have to go through th nic to get to the switch>


>Taking a slightly different approach, My guess (and thats all it is, is the other way than you and Michael suggested. )
>
>Using something like a HP ProCurve SmartSwitch, you take the network processing off the 'server' and onto the Switch.
>
>Traffic collisions, and errors would be handled by the switch, which it was built for, allowing the server to handle what database / file and email access. Like it should.
>
>That is my totally un-informend way that I would look at this...
>
>Who wins ?
>
>Bob Lee
>
>
>
>>>Server with 3NIC to 3HUB or
>>>Server with one NIC to SWITCH and to 3HUB
>>>
>>>SERVER
>>> NIC1------HUB1
>>> NIC2------HUB2
>>> NIC4------HUB3
>>>
>>>or
>>>SERVER
>>> NIC------SWITCH----------HUB1
>>> |_________HUB2
>>> |_________HUB3
>>>
>>>
>>>Wich system is get better and faster communication!
>>>Thanx
>>
>>I've never encountered a situtation like that, but I'll give it a wild guess:
>>
>>Since the Linux kernel will fork threads to handle multiple connections, the first configuration would be faster because each card would handle less traffic that the second configuration in which one card would handle all the traffic. This assumes, of course, that the traffic is somewhat balanced and not concentrated through one hub.
>>
>>Have you experimented with this?
>>Did I pass? :)