Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Waragainstsleep · May 18, 2012, 06:49 AM

I have a Mac Mini which I'd like to give an extra gigabit ethernet port. Sadly the options for this are ludicrously overprices when you consider that you can add one via PCI/E for about $5.

Is there a way I can use the firewire 800 port to attach this machine to an ethernet network? I have other Mac Minis available which are connected via their own ethernet ports and have firewire ports to spare.

Anyone ever done this?

Spheric Harlot · May 18, 2012, 07:13 AM

How about going FireWire to FireWire?

No adapter needed, and any Mac can be set to share the Internet connection via FireWire.

Waragainstsleep · May 18, 2012, 10:18 AM

Yes, thats what I meant, but I'd need one Mac Mini to get its network access through the other one without stopping that one getting its own access. How would I configure that.

Basically one Mac Mini is hosting an iSCSI device so its network port is not available and wifi is not quick enough.

BLAZE_MkIV · May 18, 2012, 10:28 AM

You should be able to set up network sharing on the second mini.

Waragainstsleep · May 18, 2012, 10:35 AM

I suppose it is that simple, isn't it? My brain isn't working today. It'll have to go on a separate subnet then though right? Or could I just reserve the necessary IPs from my range and use those? Suppose I'll have to just try it.

BLAZE_MkIV · May 18, 2012, 11:17 AM

I don't think you'll need a different subnet if you can set it as a bridge.

If it isn't that simple then you can always drop to the command line and configure the deamon manually but my unix foo in that area is limited to knowing its possible.

Spheric Harlot · May 18, 2012, 12:02 PM

System prefs --> sharing --> Internet sharing.

Share <whatever> to FireWire.

That should be all.

Waragainstsleep · May 18, 2012, 05:48 PM

I normally set up a point to point IP connection when I use internet sharing. It won't run DGCP 'through' it will it?

BLAZE_MkIV · May 18, 2012, 06:35 PM

That's what the bridge mode would do. Treats is like the bridge machine isn't there.

mduell · May 19, 2012, 11:12 AM

You have an iSCSI device directly attached to a single machine instead of a switch?

How strange.

Waragainstsleep · May 19, 2012, 11:17 AM

Otherwise it would necessitate an iSCSI compatible switch. Also, its attached to a Mac Server which rules the access permissions. This would be harder/less convenient to do if it was direct NAS. iSCSI was cheaper than Fibre by quite a lot and since the network connection was always going to be the bottleneck anyway, it seemed a good idea at the time. I'd go Fibre in the future, only because it doesn't require third party software to mount which occasionally gets a bit fussy and doesn't mount on a reboot.

mduell · May 19, 2012, 08:30 PM

Does Apple even support converged ports? I guess a switch may not have helped if they don't.

Waragainstsleep · May 19, 2012, 09:51 PM

Converged? As in link aggregation? Its not necessary with iSCSI.

mduell · May 20, 2012, 11:21 AM

No, converged as in SAN and LAN over a single ethernet port.

edit: But wait, you're doing iSCSI not FCoE. iSCSI just runs over IP on a couple TCP ports. Unless you need the security of a separate iSCSI (V)LAN you can just use your existing switch. Every ethernet switch is "iSCSI compatible."

Waragainstsleep · May 20, 2012, 01:03 PM

Hmmm. Perhaps I'll try that then.

mduell · May 20, 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Also, its attached to a Mac Server which rules the access permissions. This would be harder/less convenient to do if it was direct NAS.

This is always the case with a SAN; iSCSI or FCoE or AoE provides block-level storage, so you always have some host connected to layer on a file system, file-level network sharing, access controls, etc before it's usable to the end users.