Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)
Just Checking

Burned Out the LAN Ports on my DIR-825 Router

Recommended Posts

Just Checking

I have just got a N54L server and have been creating my Home/Small Business network.   I have just started implementing a bare metal backup of the workstations on my network and so my network load has increased dramaticly.   Yesterday I had a network failure which I traced to the failure of the LAN ports on my DIR-825 Rev B1 router (FW ver 2.09NA).  My setup was:

 

DLink DCM-202 cable Modem => DLInk DIR-825 rev. B1 router => DLink 5-Port Unmanaged, gigabit, smart switch => Server + Workstation 1 + Workstation 2 + Workstation 3 + AP (DLink DIR-825 Rev A1).

 

The failure happened as I was doing simultaneous file transfers between two of the workstations and one drive on the server by CAT6 cable ethernet connection.   This happened after several hours of this kind of load.   The 5-port switch did not fail, it was the the LAN ports on the router which failed.  The failure also took out all the LAN ports and the WAN port on the router so I could not use the WiFi feature on the router either.

 

Have other people experienced similar failures of their LAN ports on their routers?  I believe so because other people have said to use a secondary switch in place of the ones on the router (that is why I implemented the DLink gigabit unmanaged switch that I put in line on my system.

 

I was able to reconfigure my DLink DIR-825 Rev A1 router back from an AP to router configuration and get my network back on-line.   I had the second router as a backup anyway and was just using it as an AP because I had it.  I am glad I had a backup.

 

I do not consider my usage to be extreme.   This is the first time I did load the network this high (essentially 100% capability of the network for several hours) but this will be a regular occurrance in the future.

 

How can I prevent this from happening again?  I don't have anymore backup routers.  

 

Is this just a case of not enough router?   Are there better, more reliable, heavy duty, dual band routers out there that do not cost hundreds of US$? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmwills

I think you just got a lemon.  If you are going to use the commercial (SOHO) router to handle DHCP that's fine, but I would upgrade the switch to at least a 12 or 16 port switch.

 

 

Use just one of the LAN ports on the router to connect to the switch and all hard wired connections should be connected to the switch only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cskenney

If you were copying from workstation to workstation and they were both hooked to the the same switch then you were not routing anything through the router doing those transfers.  This sounds like a case of the router just failed, period.

 

The whole idea behind using the switch is to take the load off the LAN ports on the router.  The switch does packet routing (I think that is what it is called).  Once it knows where traffic is coming and going, the switch is able to actually route the traffic with no help from an actual router.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmwills

Yes, the switch knows where to route the traffic rather than broadcasting it across all ports and waiting for a response from the requester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Checking

Thanks for all of the posts.

 

Yes, I have a 24 port unmanaged, gigabit, smart switch waiting for me to complete the remodel.  Then I will be able to use all the home run ethernet cables I have strung in the walls.  When I am finished, I will have at least 4 seperate ethernet ports in every room.   That's for the future.  Right now, I'm just trying to get a network cobbled together that will see me through.  Hence all my previous posts about using wireless.

 

I implemented the 5-port switch from all the people (I think CSKenney was especially insistent) who recommended not using the router LAN ports.  I did it just to prevent what happened to me.  It has made me cautious about running the same scenario with the first generation of the same model router.  I can't afford to blow out another routher until I have a backup ready to go.

 

I have been asking questions over at the forum.dlink.com site about wireless networking and how to utilize the DIR-825 more effectively.  I never receive any specific technical instructions from that site and only get vague generalities when I ask for specifics.  I will say that this site has been much more helpful in all aspects and the level of knowledge here is the highest of any of the hardware sites I go to.  I do appreciate it.

 

Any recommendations about a solid dual band router that will not break the bank and give me an improved wireless performance?  I am partial to routers with external antennas because I believe that they are upgradable and capable of utilizing remote antenna's (to put antennas outside without having the electronics susceptible to the weather)

Edited by Just Checking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcollison

I have been using the DIR-655 for a year now with few issues once I moved all the traffic off of it and only use it for a wireless access point.  Here is is on Amazon http://amzn.com/B000LIFB7S  I got mine as a referb from woot for $35.  It's  worked well for me.

 

I use a pfsense router that handles all the DHCP and internet traffic.  I also use two ZyXel 8 port switches on my network.  I know everyone like one big switch, but these two have worked great for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Checking

Thanks for the input jcollison.

 

The DIR-655 was/is a workhorse router and it makes a great AP if you only want to use the single 2.4GHz band.  This one will work with cell phones, Tablets, and for extending the wireless network outside the building with remote antennas.  I preffer a dual band router to be able to go to a N600 or better.  That was one of the reasons I originally chose the DIR-825. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmwills

Do you get good coverage with the N600, since it has no external antennas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ikon

 The whole idea behind using the switch is to take the load off the LAN ports on the router.  The switch does packet routing (I think that is what it is called).  Once it knows where traffic is coming and going, the switch is able to actually route the traffic with no help from an actual router.

 

I hope I'm not getting too 'technical' here, but what switches do is called bridging. Routers connect dissimilar networks (like connecting an Ethernet LAN to DSL or Cable networking, which use very different signalling). Bridges connect similar networks (such as 2 twisted-pair Ethernet LANS).

 

Basically, switches are Ethernet hubs with bridging added to each port. In the industry it's often termed as 'bridge-per-port'. Each port has 2 sides: the 'local' side that connects to computers on its RJ45 side, and the 'remote' side that connects to other ports in the switch.

 

Each port on a switch keeps track of the MAC addresses of computers that send packets across it. It learns which computers are on the 'local' side and builds a table of them. Then, each port monitors the Ethernet traffic coming across the 'remote' side. It looks at the MAC address inside every Ethernet packet. If the MAC address of the destination computer is not in a port's 'local' table, it ignores it. This keeps traffic not destined for 'local' computers off of that part of the network.

 

Conversely, the ports also monitor their 'local' side. If the source & destination MAC addresses inside a packet are both in the table of local computers, the port doesn't forward the packet onto the remote side, thus reducing overall traffic on the remote side.

 

Probably the simplest way to look at it is that routers have to do at least some reformatting to the packets that come across it; bridges simply have to repeat or ignore packets as they are.

 

The details are a good deal more complex than what I've described but, hopefully, it gives a basic idea of what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest no-control

Fuel or sand to the fire....

 

 

 

A switch keeps a record of the MAC addresses of all the devices connected to it. With this information, a switch can identify which system is sitting on which port. So when a frame is received, it knows exactly which port to send it to, without significantly increasing network response times. And, unlike a hub, a gigabit switch will allocate a full 1000Mbps to each of its ports. So regardless of the number of PCs transmitting, users will always have access to the maximum amount of bandwidth. It's for these reasons why a switch is considered to be a much better choice then a hub.

 

 

 

Routers are completely different devices. Where a hub or switch is concerned with transmitting frames, a router's job, as its name implies, is to route packets to other networks until that packet ultimately reaches its destination. One of the key features of a packet is that it not only contains data, but the destination address of where it's going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...