Your disclaimer at the beginning of the video, upto about 2:30 minute mark, is really important that is gotten wrong very often on the internet. Link Aggregation of two one Gbe does not give a single machine 2Gb access. Great explanation.
Link aggregation can give speed improvement for one client if use round-robin scheme, but it's not officially supported by Synology. Steel need to keep in mind that speed often limited by hard drives themselves.
Hopefully you see this and hopefully could possibly help. Running Asus Ax92u - I enabled the aggregation, followed your steps for the Synology NAS to enable LAG but getting to the Network Setup step @4:50 it just says failed... No other info to help direct as to the source of the issue unfortunately.
I haven't seen it just say "failed", but is everything being inputted properly? That's the manual configuration, so I imagine if you're using the wrong subnet, you might run into a problem.
After that failure - I reset the NAS with both ports connected - this apparently gave the second port a different IP than before and that seemed to cause the web access client to fail . I removed the second port - bonded the ports with the manual setup giving it the port 1 IP - plugged the second port in and now it seems to be stable.
That's great. I've never experienced any of those other problems but know that two IP addresses are "bonded" into one, so the problem must have been related to that in some way. Glad it's fixed!
I have just come across your channel and really thankful for your focus on Synology. I have had many Synology questions that you have answered. I have an older DS414 and hoping to get a bit more speed/access for my TimeMachine backs ups. Multiple Mac’s doing TimeMachine across the network takes long.😊
I just bought a Synology DS 723+, and I don't have a switch. I followed your instructions but used the automated version for creating a bond and took a chance to implement it by connecting both my Gigabit cables to the router I have from Bell Canada. It seems that everything went fine, and the good news is I didn't get locked out of my NAS ;-) The interesting thing, however, is that my browser auto-refreshed when I implemented the bonding, and now I am getting a warning that connection to the NAS is "not secure" and Chrome is showing the https in red with a strike through. Should I be worried that somehow my NAS is now insecure and "went public" on the entire internet so anyone can highjack it?
That simply means you're using HTTPS and don't have a valid SSL certificate (which isn't a problem for local access). If you are concerned about external access, log in to your router and check your port forwarding rules. If none exist, there is nothing exposed to the outside world!
I'm wondering what I should set up first, the link aggregation on my router (many ASUS routers support this) and then configure the network in the Synology control panel? Or do I just plug in the two network cables to the router, configure the link aggregation (IEEE 802.3ad) then turn on the link aggregation feature within the ASUS router?
I'm a tad confused. 1. In UniFi Network, when you select Aggregate, it says "Make sure to enable port aggregation on the downlink device first before enabling it on this device." 2. In Synology, when you create Bond, and highlight the "i" button next to IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic Link Aggregation it says "IEEE 802.3ad LACP must be enabled on your switch beforehand" So which one are you supposed to do first exactly?
Well for anyone wondering... a) I tried to first turn on aggregation on the switch in UniFi network, and found out that then you cannot access the NAS to turn on a Bonded connection. So the answer is to create a bonded lan first on the NAS, wait for it to finish, it will say an error that it couldn't establish or whatever (you can definitely still access the nas fine).... then go into UniFi and turn on aggregation for the two ports... once its completed, the error in Synology is gone. I'm going to assume, if I need to reverse it, I would first disable port aggregation in UniFi. Then log into Synology (which will show an error in the bonded connection status) and simply remove the Bonded Channel.
Eh... so I've tested the speeds and noticed if using 2 PCs, copying say a 5GB file each at the same time, they're not getting their 1Gbps (~125MB/s) bandwidth each, its still splitting a single 1Gb connection, so one PC gets 57MB and the other gets 57MB a, total around 115MB or so. I now assume this is because I've got a UDM Pro and a Ubiquiti switch connected together via 1x 1Gb lan cable. I assuming I need to use 2x cables and create a bonded aggregate so that there's 2Gbps between the UDM Pro and the USW-16-POE switch as well, and then it should work? (even when my 2x PCs and the NAS were all connected to the USW-16-POE?). We'll scrap that idea, UDM Pro doesn't have aggregation, it has a 10G SPF port, but then my switch has 2x 1G SPF Ports. Hrmmm wonder if this entire exercise has been a waste of time.
This type will not work with static link aggregation unfortunately, but you can utilize a different link aggregation type (don't remember which off the top of my head).
Thank you for your great help! i want to ask, i added a SFPD card, is it possible to make a Bond with native 4 cards and another different bond with SFPD card with mac adddress? You have my like!
So my Switch (Orbi router) doesn’t support long aggregation. But I connected both LAN ports in my DS920+ to the router and created a “bond” in DSM with 1 IP address. Does this help with throughput or failover? Not sure if there is any advantage in doing this or if I should change it back.
Did you use Balance-SLB? If so, it will function very similarly, just not as "efficient" as Balance-TCP. Nothing to change if it's working as expected!
@@WunderTechTutorials Yes, I’ve got it set up as Balance-SLB. You may have mentioned this, but I think it only helps when more than 1 device is accessing data. My only concern is what happens if 1 LAN port goes down, does it take the whole bond with it and leave me with no access to the NAS? I’ve never had an Ethernet port fail on me in 30 years but…
Is there any way to increase read/write speeds to one client without a 10Gig NIC? I'm thinking of upgrading to a DS920+ or DS1520+, but if there's no way of going above the 1Gb/s speed to once client I might consider the DS1621+ with a 10Gb/s card.
Unfortunately, not any supported ways. I believe you can find 2.5Gbe or 5Gbe USB adapters that might work, but they're not officially "supported". The DS1621+ is a great choice if you're interested in 10Gbe.
Helpful video, so I have an unmanaged switch DGS 1016A, that supports link aggregation but after the setup process I get "Failed To Establish IEEE 802.3 ad connection" Everything still works; i can access the NAS and its content , but I get that message does that mean link aggregation is not configured? What do you recommend?
@@WunderTechTutorials Yes i can see the bond interface, dont know if you can view this image linustechtips.com/uploads/monthly_2022_05/image.png.170c4d7199dcb34692074bec18f744e9.png but its right under the bond where it shows Network Status in DSM Interface.
At the 6:50 mark in your video where it shows Network Status: 2000Mbps, Full Duplex, MTU 1500, that's where the message is displayed. "Failed To Establish IEEE 802.3 ad connection"
@@WunderTechTutorials I think I see the issue, the switch only supports all the following except IEEE 802.3ad • IEEE 802.3 10BASE-T Ethernet • IEEE 802.3u 100BASE-TX Fast Ethernet • IEEE 802.3ab 1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet • ANSI/IEEE 802.3 NWay auto-negotiation • IEEE 802.3x Flow Control • IEEE 802.3az Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE)
Do I have to use a different static IP to the one I have currently assigned for my NAS? My UDM pro has a fixed IP assigned to my synology at the moment so can I still then assign the same IP on the synology setup for the Bond or is that going to mess it up? I am tempted to just play it safe and assign a new IP (although fixed) that is not already allocated to a client. The other way I was thinking is giving my synology a random IP through DHCP so it looses it’s fixed IP that I want to then reassign through synology settings. Thanks for the video !
For those using Docker to host the Unifi controller on the Synology, simply setup two different, free, ports for link aggregation, other that the ones currently in use. You then set up the link aggregation on the Synology, Then, physically unplug the cables from the original ports and plug them into the new aggregate-enabled ports and Voila!
And this video is another example of how confusing this subject is for people trying to learn. One company calls something one name while another companh calls that same thing something else. We really need to get the industry to a standard of terms and then simply define those with an across the industry standard. The confused terms are Bond, Bridge, Link, Team, Group, LAG, and LACP, just to name some of the confused terms. It is really confusing lately since more people have been looking for ways to increase their home speeds using old enterprise equipment. That same equipment that was made for the combining of multiple NICs to get the faster speeds but made very difficult for the home user to replicate.
You really don't have to go and reset the NAS is you get into an issue with the LAG. Only the Bonded IP is no longer available. So, just remember which port you had connected first, move the cable on the switch, if needed, to an un LAG'd port. Then you can access the NAS through the original IP. The only reason this would not work is if you changed the Bonded IP to the original IP of the NAS.
This feature is awesome in theory but absolutely not useful in practice. Besides the "failsafe" backup if the cable goes wrong (something that happens 0.000001% ) there is no practical reason to have two 1 gigabit bandwidths when the NAS HDD can only read/write at 100-130ish mb/s . Even if you RAID, you still won't reach the bandwidth to use this.
I will be honest in saying that I am on the other side of the fence on this one and feel that if you have a switch supporting LACP, there's very little reason not to implement it. I agree with you that the the redundancy will very rarely, if ever be needed, but having it is still a benefit. As for the HDD performance, assuming you have a 4-bay NAS at minimum and are using RAID 5, four drives will give you the performance needed to come close to saturating both lines and overall, if you can even see a slight performance benefit versus no performance benefit, why wouldn't you implement it? I also agree with you that a 2-bay NAS will see no benefit (unless you're using RAID 0), but the chances of having multiple clients or a managed switch as a 2-bay NAS owner are probably smaller than 4+. Not saying this to sway you as everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's just how I feel about it.
Pin this: You can plug in a USB wifi or ethernet adaptor and set it up with static or DHCP and\or connect to your own wifi so you do not lose connection through any of this. I do this to all of our NAS's and then unplug the "emergency" adaptors. Synology saved the wifi auto-connect to "X" network and all of the Nic settings so when you plug either back in they connect right up and you can use Synology finder\advanced IP scanner or your router GUI to find the IP ( unless set static which is allowed via wifi usb too ). Never lose connection, no resetting anything etc....
Are you using DSM 7? I am hesitant to suggest that as USB device support was dropped with DSM 7, but do acknowledge that it will work and is a great solution if you do have a supported adapter.
@@WunderTechTutorials I can confirm I have a 2.5Gb USB nic. The brand is pluggable, and someone created a driver for it, and I can confirm it works on DSM 7. It actually works way better on DSM 7, than it did on 6. It used to drop out often on 6, but on 7, it's been rock solid.
I have heard people warn against doing this if you are using a cheaper switch as it can mess up your data and can introduce corruption. Has anyone experienced this or care to comment? It’s this worry that keeps me away from doing this. Much thanks.
Mr WunderTech does explain this in his video; if your switch DOES NOT support Link Aggregation then you will lose access to your NAS; the data on the drives is find should be fine and if you reset you nas then you can gain access again.
I haven't heard of data corruption issues and after a few searches, didn't really find anything either. Do you have any examples? I don't want to lead you down a wrong path saying that it's impossible - I just haven't heard of it.
Your disclaimer at the beginning of the video, upto about 2:30 minute mark, is really important that is gotten wrong very often on the internet. Link Aggregation of two one Gbe does not give a single machine 2Gb access.
Great explanation.
Thanks so much!
Link aggregation can give speed improvement for one client if use round-robin scheme, but it's not officially supported by Synology. Steel need to keep in mind that speed often limited by hard drives themselves.
Wow. Thanks. One client can't have more than 1gb bandwidth but two or more clients can share total 2 gb bandwidth. Good explanation.
Glad it helped!
Just bought a DS920+ and you explained this perfectly. Appreciate it!
Great video Frank. You do a great job of making tech simple for others.
Thanks so much, Tony. I really appreciate you watching!
Great video, clear and concise on exactly what I am looking to do.
I have the old Cisco SG300-10. I followed your advice to set up on my DS920+. thanks😁
Hopefully you see this and hopefully could possibly help. Running Asus Ax92u - I enabled the aggregation, followed your steps for the Synology NAS to enable LAG but getting to the Network Setup step @4:50 it just says failed... No other info to help direct as to the source of the issue unfortunately.
I haven't seen it just say "failed", but is everything being inputted properly? That's the manual configuration, so I imagine if you're using the wrong subnet, you might run into a problem.
@@WunderTechTutorials Wow thanks for getting back to me. I use the default DHCP setting - the top selection.
@@WunderTechTutorials well now I have the issue that when I plug the second ethernet into the router the web access assistant goes down...
After that failure - I reset the NAS with both ports connected - this apparently gave the second port a different IP than before and that seemed to cause the web access client to fail . I removed the second port - bonded the ports with the manual setup giving it the port 1 IP - plugged the second port in and now it seems to be stable.
That's great. I've never experienced any of those other problems but know that two IP addresses are "bonded" into one, so the problem must have been related to that in some way. Glad it's fixed!
I have just come across your channel and really thankful for your focus on Synology. I have had many Synology questions that you have answered. I have an older DS414 and hoping to get a bit more speed/access for my TimeMachine backs ups. Multiple Mac’s doing TimeMachine across the network takes long.😊
Set up went fine, working like a charm. Glad I found this, the last TM backup took a lot less time.
I just bought a Synology DS 723+, and I don't have a switch. I followed your instructions but used the automated version for creating a bond and took a chance to implement it by connecting both my Gigabit cables to the router I have from Bell Canada.
It seems that everything went fine, and the good news is I didn't get locked out of my NAS ;-) The interesting thing, however, is that my browser auto-refreshed when I implemented the bonding, and now I am getting a warning that connection to the NAS is "not secure" and Chrome is showing the https in red with a strike through.
Should I be worried that somehow my NAS is now insecure and "went public" on the entire internet so anyone can highjack it?
That simply means you're using HTTPS and don't have a valid SSL certificate (which isn't a problem for local access). If you are concerned about external access, log in to your router and check your port forwarding rules. If none exist, there is nothing exposed to the outside world!
@@WunderTechTutorials I appreciate your video and your super fast and very helpful reply! Subscribed!!! And thank you again!
@@SingularityFM Your comment was deleted for some reason, but you can simply delete the bond and undo any network changes you made on your router.
@@WunderTechTutorials Thank you. Very kind of you. I deleted it because I figured it out and didn't want to waste your time.
@@SingularityFM Sounds good! TH-cam always deletes comments so I try and respond if I have enough info from what I can see. Glad you got it working.
I'm wondering what I should set up first, the link aggregation on my router (many ASUS routers support this) and then configure the network in the Synology control panel? Or do I just plug in the two network cables to the router, configure the link aggregation (IEEE 802.3ad) then turn on the link aggregation feature within the ASUS router?
You'd have to configure it on the NAS first, though you might want to look into SMB Multichannel as well.
Thanks for the great explanation. Could you just setup the aggregation on the switch before you setup the aggregation on the nas?
Not in my experience - if you set it up on the Switch, you won't be able to access the NAS to configure it. Might depend on the Switch though.
@@WunderTechTutorials could you move the cable ports?
Is it necessary to have switch with link aggregation feature or just any switch is fine
Hi, What if we have a SHA cluster? Thanks
Where do i get that IP address to put in Manual configuration ?
Great video. user informative as always! I know several places were this is utilized in production!
Thank you, I really appreciate you watching!
Great video, thank you. Do you know if latest update to SMB multiple channel is better now to setup than link aggregation?
Better is subjective, but if you'll utilize SMB multi-channel, try it out!
I'm a tad confused.
1. In UniFi Network, when you select Aggregate, it says "Make sure to enable port aggregation on the downlink device first before enabling it on this device."
2. In Synology, when you create Bond, and highlight the "i" button next to IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic Link Aggregation it says "IEEE 802.3ad LACP must be enabled on your switch beforehand"
So which one are you supposed to do first exactly?
Well for anyone wondering...
a) I tried to first turn on aggregation on the switch in UniFi network, and found out that then you cannot access the NAS to turn on a Bonded connection.
So the answer is to create a bonded lan first on the NAS, wait for it to finish, it will say an error that it couldn't establish or whatever (you can definitely still access the nas fine).... then go into UniFi and turn on aggregation for the two ports... once its completed, the error in Synology is gone.
I'm going to assume, if I need to reverse it, I would first disable port aggregation in UniFi. Then log into Synology (which will show an error in the bonded connection status) and simply remove the Bonded Channel.
Eh... so I've tested the speeds and noticed if using 2 PCs, copying say a 5GB file each at the same time, they're not getting their 1Gbps (~125MB/s) bandwidth each, its still splitting a single 1Gb connection, so one PC gets 57MB and the other gets 57MB a, total around 115MB or so. I now assume this is because I've got a UDM Pro and a Ubiquiti switch connected together via 1x 1Gb lan cable. I assuming I need to use 2x cables and create a bonded aggregate so that there's 2Gbps between the UDM Pro and the USW-16-POE switch as well, and then it should work? (even when my 2x PCs and the NAS were all connected to the USW-16-POE?). We'll scrap that idea, UDM Pro doesn't have aggregation, it has a 10G SPF port, but then my switch has 2x 1G SPF Ports. Hrmmm wonder if this entire exercise has been a waste of time.
Any difference if your switch only has Static Link Aggregation instead of Dynamic Link Aggregation?
This type will not work with static link aggregation unfortunately, but you can utilize a different link aggregation type (don't remember which off the top of my head).
Thank you for your great help!
i want to ask, i added a SFPD card, is it possible to make a Bond with native 4 cards and another different bond with SFPD card with mac adddress?
You have my like!
Good stuff thanks
So my Switch (Orbi router) doesn’t support long aggregation. But I connected both LAN ports in my DS920+ to the router and created a “bond” in DSM with 1 IP address. Does this help with throughput or failover? Not sure if there is any advantage in doing this or if I should change it back.
Did you use Balance-SLB? If so, it will function very similarly, just not as "efficient" as Balance-TCP. Nothing to change if it's working as expected!
@@WunderTechTutorials Yes, I’ve got it set up as Balance-SLB. You may have mentioned this, but I think it only helps when more than 1 device is accessing data. My only concern is what happens if 1 LAN port goes down, does it take the whole bond with it and leave me with no access to the NAS? I’ve never had an Ethernet port fail on me in 30 years but…
@@notreallyme425 No, you should have redundancy if one fails as it will automatically kick over to the other.
@@WunderTechTutorials Awesome, thank you! (Thought I was subscribed to you, but I am now! Appreciate the Synology vids)
Is there any way to increase read/write speeds to one client without a 10Gig NIC? I'm thinking of upgrading to a DS920+ or DS1520+, but if there's no way of going above the 1Gb/s speed to once client I might consider the DS1621+ with a 10Gb/s card.
Unfortunately, not any supported ways. I believe you can find 2.5Gbe or 5Gbe USB adapters that might work, but they're not officially "supported". The DS1621+ is a great choice if you're interested in 10Gbe.
Helpful video, so I have an unmanaged switch DGS 1016A, that supports link aggregation but after the setup process I get "Failed To Establish IEEE 802.3 ad connection" Everything still works; i can access the NAS and its content , but I get that message does that mean link aggregation is not configured? What do you recommend?
Where are you getting that error? Do you see the bond interface in DSM?
@@WunderTechTutorials Yes i can see the bond interface, dont know if you can view this image linustechtips.com/uploads/monthly_2022_05/image.png.170c4d7199dcb34692074bec18f744e9.png but its right under the bond where it shows Network Status in DSM Interface.
At the 6:50 mark in your video where it shows Network Status: 2000Mbps, Full Duplex, MTU 1500, that's where the message is displayed. "Failed To Establish IEEE 802.3 ad connection"
@@WunderTechTutorials I think I see the issue, the switch only supports all the following except IEEE 802.3ad
• IEEE 802.3 10BASE-T Ethernet
• IEEE 802.3u 100BASE-TX Fast Ethernet
• IEEE 802.3ab 1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet
• ANSI/IEEE 802.3 NWay auto-negotiation
• IEEE 802.3x Flow Control
• IEEE 802.3az Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE)
@@cutsdbz That makes sense. Have you tried setting up Balance-SLB? Not the same as Balance-TCP, but it will at least work with an unmanaged switch.
Do I have to use a different static IP to the one I have currently assigned for my NAS?
My UDM pro has a fixed IP assigned to my synology at the moment so can I still then assign the same IP on the synology setup for the Bond or is that going to mess it up?
I am tempted to just play it safe and assign a new IP (although fixed) that is not already allocated to a client. The other way I was thinking is giving my synology a random IP through DHCP so it looses it’s fixed IP that I want to then reassign through synology settings.
Thanks for the video !
Thanks! You should be able to use the same one!
For those using Docker to host the Unifi controller on the Synology, simply setup two different, free, ports for link aggregation, other that the ones currently in use. You then set up the link aggregation on the Synology, Then, physically unplug the cables from the original ports and plug them into the new aggregate-enabled ports and Voila!
Would you mind explaining each step - I can't follow exactly what you mean
Nice Video, tho right now I think Synology should make 2.5GbE a standard on their DS+ lineup
And this video is another example of how confusing this subject is for people trying to learn. One company calls something one name while another companh calls that same thing something else. We really need to get the industry to a standard of terms and then simply define those with an across the industry standard. The confused terms are Bond, Bridge, Link, Team, Group, LAG, and LACP, just to name some of the confused terms. It is really confusing lately since more people have been looking for ways to increase their home speeds using old enterprise equipment. That same equipment that was made for the combining of multiple NICs to get the faster speeds but made very difficult for the home user to replicate.
Cisco has their own trademark terms, but mean the same things. Sort of like "Astroturf" vs "artificial turf"
You really don't have to go and reset the NAS is you get into an issue with the LAG. Only the Bonded IP is no longer available. So, just remember which port you had connected first, move the cable on the switch, if needed, to an un LAG'd port. Then you can access the NAS through the original IP. The only reason this would not work is if you changed the Bonded IP to the original IP of the NAS.
I have had success by removing one of the network cables to gain access back to the NAS without resetting it.
What are the steps you follow to do it? I tried, but wasn't successful.
@@WunderTechTutorials Unplugged one cable from NAS. Power cycle NAS and was able to access.
@@ivgnmonkey Got it, I didn't try the power cycle. Thank you for the info!
This feature is awesome in theory but absolutely not useful in practice. Besides the "failsafe" backup if the cable goes wrong (something that happens 0.000001% ) there is no practical reason to have two 1 gigabit bandwidths when the NAS HDD can only read/write at 100-130ish mb/s . Even if you RAID, you still won't reach the bandwidth to use this.
I will be honest in saying that I am on the other side of the fence on this one and feel that if you have a switch supporting LACP, there's very little reason not to implement it. I agree with you that the the redundancy will very rarely, if ever be needed, but having it is still a benefit. As for the HDD performance, assuming you have a 4-bay NAS at minimum and are using RAID 5, four drives will give you the performance needed to come close to saturating both lines and overall, if you can even see a slight performance benefit versus no performance benefit, why wouldn't you implement it?
I also agree with you that a 2-bay NAS will see no benefit (unless you're using RAID 0), but the chances of having multiple clients or a managed switch as a 2-bay NAS owner are probably smaller than 4+. Not saying this to sway you as everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's just how I feel about it.
Pin this:
You can plug in a USB wifi or ethernet adaptor and set it up with static or DHCP and\or connect to your own wifi so you do not lose connection through any of this. I do this to all of our NAS's and then unplug the "emergency" adaptors. Synology saved the wifi auto-connect to "X" network and all of the Nic settings so when you plug either back in they connect right up and you can use Synology finder\advanced IP scanner or your router GUI to find the IP ( unless set static which is allowed via wifi usb too ). Never lose connection, no resetting anything etc....
Are you using DSM 7? I am hesitant to suggest that as USB device support was dropped with DSM 7, but do acknowledge that it will work and is a great solution if you do have a supported adapter.
@@WunderTechTutorials I can confirm I have a 2.5Gb USB nic. The brand is pluggable, and someone created a driver for it, and I can confirm it works on DSM 7. It actually works way better on DSM 7, than it did on 6. It used to drop out often on 6, but on 7, it's been rock solid.
@@mistakek Thank you for letting me know!
I have heard people warn against doing this if you are using a cheaper switch as it can mess up your data and can introduce corruption. Has anyone experienced this or care to comment? It’s this worry that keeps me away from doing this. Much thanks.
Mr WunderTech does explain this in his video; if your switch DOES NOT support Link Aggregation then you will lose access to your NAS; the data on the drives is find should be fine and if you reset you nas then you can gain access again.
I haven't heard of data corruption issues and after a few searches, didn't really find anything either. Do you have any examples? I don't want to lead you down a wrong path saying that it's impossible - I just haven't heard of it.