| Author |
Message |
Brian
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject:
Factors for switch choice |
|
|
If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to become 12
or more server based boxes? At present internet is provided via a 1MB
link.
Regards
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leythos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
In article <Vl9$3ZAE8S5BFwXV@doricnet.co.uk>, brian@clara.co.uk says...
| Quote: | If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to become 12
or more server based boxes? At present internet is provided via a 1MB
link.
|
First, my thoughts:
Get a router with NAT or a Firewall to sit between the internet and the
internal network.
Setup a server that provides DHCP and DNS functions for internal use -
have all stations (through DHCP Scope Options) use the internal server
as their primary DNS, let the server do the public lookups and DNS
caching.
Setup the server so that it's running the firewall/Router monitoring
application and that when it reboots that it starts the monitoring
software. You need this in order to see what's in/out bound on the
network. Install a SERVER Quality AV solution that will scan all of
their files - should be able to push out the AV software to their system
and control it via the internal server (Take a look at Symantec
Corporate Edition 9.0 - you can lock down the AV settings on the client
workstations so that they can't disable it locally)
Once you get past the above, you come into the world of 100base or
1000base network connections. If you're getting a server, make sure it
has a 1000base NIC, even if you start with 100base a switch.
Many very small networks (like this one) can do just fine on 100base,
but, since many machines now come 1000base ready, the cost of a couple
1gb switches (cheap ones) with 8 ports, is about $100, get two of them
and you'll have enough ports.
Another thing to consider is the shared printers - if you're running a
P2P network (and this works with a domain) consider getting a printer
sharing network device, this allows you to give the printer an IP and
does not require the users to have a computer running all the time in
order to print (meaning that the device is how everyone accesses the
printer, not through someone's computer).
I would not waste money on a managed switch at this time, but I would
consider at least a 16 port 100base switch from a quality vendor.
Hope this helps
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Not-My-Real-Name
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
Brian wrote:
| Quote: | If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to become
12 or more server based boxes? At present internet is provided
via a 1MB link.
Regards
Brian
|
A major factor would be how much data is being sent/received on your
network.
This will dictate the capacity/performance of your switch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Not-My-Real-Name
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
Leythos wrote:
| Quote: | In article <Vl9$3ZAE8S5BFwXV@doricnet.co.uk>, brian@clara.co.uk
says...
If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to
become 12 or more server based boxes? At present internet is
provided via a 1MB link.
First, my thoughts:
Get a router with NAT or a Firewall to sit between the internet and
the internal network.
|
He didn't mention requiring a Firewall, but yes, it's probably a good idea
to have one.
| Quote: | Setup a server that provides DHCP and DNS functions for internal
use - have all stations (through DHCP Scope Options) use the
internal server as their primary DNS, let the server do the public
lookups and DNS caching.
|
A good layer 2/3 switch can also provide this functionality without the need
of a
server.
| Quote: | Setup the server so that it's running the firewall/Router monitoring
application and that when it reboots that it starts the monitoring
software. You need this in order to see what's in/out bound on the
network. Install a SERVER Quality AV solution that will scan all of
their files - should be able to push out the AV software to their
system and control it via the internal server (Take a look at
Symantec Corporate Edition 9.0 - you can lock down the AV settings
on the client workstations so that they can't disable it locally)
|
Syslogging works great for this as well.
Parsing the logs can be fun, but at least you've captured the
events.
| Quote: |
Once you get past the above, you come into the world of 100base or
1000base network connections. If you're getting a server, make sure
it has a 1000base NIC, even if you start with 100base a switch.
|
Why?
Are servers today even capable of saturating two full duplex 100Mbps NICs
let alone Gig ones?
| Quote: | Many very small networks (like this one) can do just fine on
100base, but, since many machines now come 1000base ready, the cost
of a couple 1gb switches (cheap ones) with 8 ports, is about $100,
get two of them and you'll have enough ports.
|
True. They are cheaper, but it's overkill at present.
| Quote: | Another thing to consider is the shared printers - if you're
running a P2P network (and this works with a domain) consider
getting a printer sharing network device, this allows you to give
the printer an IP and does not require the users to have a computer
running all the time in order to print (meaning that the device is
how everyone accesses the printer, not through someone's computer).
|
Good point.
| Quote: | I would not waste money on a managed switch at this time, but I
would consider at least a 16 port 100base switch from a quality
vendor.
|
They aren't that much more money. It all depends on the budget allowed.
I'd get one that I could telnet into, SNMP manage/poll, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leythos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:11 am Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
In article <6MvFd.2059$df.98018@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
someone@micros0ft.com says...
| Quote: | Once you get past the above, you come into the world of 100base or
1000base network connections. If you're getting a server, make sure
it has a 1000base NIC, even if you start with 100base a switch.
Why?
Are servers today even capable of saturating two full duplex 100Mbps NICs
let alone Gig ones?
|
Yes they are - I have a number of clients that max out their 100base
networks with their accounting packages, not to mention the systems
backup across the networks.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Not-My-Real-Name
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
Leythos wrote:
| Quote: | In article <6MvFd.2059$df.98018@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
someone@micros0ft.com says...
Once you get past the above, you come into the world of 100base or
1000base network connections. If you're getting a server, make
sure it has a 1000base NIC, even if you start with 100base a
switch.
Why?
Are servers today even capable of saturating two full duplex
100Mbps NICs let alone Gig ones?
Yes they are - I have a number of clients that max out their 100base
networks with their accounting packages, not to mention the systems
backup across the networks.
--
|
Then their switches are being oversubscribed, you may want to look at new
ones. I'm not talking saturating the network switch with this example.
Switches with large Gigabit backplane speeds/capacities are readily
available. Let's assume you've actually spent good money on higher end
switches with large backplane capacities.
Now your server is then connected to said high end switch, say using two
100Mb/s Full duplex NICs (teamed for redundancy). Assume the switch is
more than capable of sending 100Mb/s to each port.
Can the server even handle that capacity (400Mbps) through their PCI buses
to/from their memory/HD controllers and two/from the network? Let alone if
they have 2000Mbps (using Gig NICs).
That's my point. GigE from what I understand is overkill for most
PC/Server hardware at present from what I've observed. They tend to peak
out in the 400-500Mbps range, at least the servers I've seen.
GigE is certainly the norm for core switch/closet switch interconnects.
The price is coming down, so over subscribing the capacity to the server
isn't that big a deal, but that doesn't necessarily mean the server is
capable of actually taking advantage of all that bandwidth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
In message <Vl9$3ZAE8S5BFwXV@doricnet.co.uk>, Brian <brian@clara.co.uk>
writes
| Quote: | If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to become 12
or more server based boxes? At present internet is provided via a 1MB
link.
Regards
Brian
|
Thanks Leythos and Someone.
One can learn a lot from listening to two experts debate a point.
With regard to the point that one should assess the likely load on any
network, even if that were possible with any degree of accuracy, there
would still be the problem that, as far as I can see from the suppliers,
no low-end switch specifies its switching capacity. In fact, even the
more expensive Cisco switches seem not to specify their switching
capacity. Hence what should one assume the switching capacity of say a
16-port 100base switch is? It surely will not be 16 x 100 Mbps - or
will it?
Another question that has occurred to me is whether it is better to use
a managed switch which makes access control lists (ACL) available or to
implement that feature in a firewall. (The rather simple need that I
have in mind is keeping one or more network stations off the internet -
and I ought to say that at present I am using IPCop which implements
iptables.)
Yet another question that has crossed my mind is how important is it for
a switch to have queuing?
A final question is, is it just marketing hype to say that a switch is
"non-blocking". I always thought that that absence of blocking as in
basic CSMA/CD and hubs, was the key feature that made a switch different
from a hub.
Regards and grateful thanks for your time.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leythos
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:41 am Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
In article <TmcOnxCNQB6BFw+a@doricnet.co.uk>, brian@clara.co.uk says...
| Quote: | In message <Vl9$3ZAE8S5BFwXV@doricnet.co.uk>, Brian <brian@clara.co.uk
writes
If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to become 12
or more server based boxes? At present internet is provided via a 1MB
link.
Regards
Brian
Thanks Leythos and Someone.
One can learn a lot from listening to two experts debate a point.
With regard to the point that one should assess the likely load on any
network, even if that were possible with any degree of accuracy, there
would still be the problem that, as far as I can see from the suppliers,
no low-end switch specifies its switching capacity. In fact, even the
more expensive Cisco switches seem not to specify their switching
capacity. Hence what should one assume the switching capacity of say a
16-port 100base switch is? It surely will not be 16 x 100 Mbps - or
will it?
|
It's never Ports x Speed, it's about understanding how many stations hit
the SAME point on the switch at the same time and what type of
Apps/volume of data they pull per hit.
A person editing Autocad drawings might use a lot or a little capacity,
more likely a lot. A person editing word and excel documents might only
need a little capacity. A person editing images or audio/video would
need a lot. A database on the server where many users access it at the
same instant would benefit form a high-capacity network. A remote backup
system (on the same network) would always benefit from a 1gb network vs
100base network system.
It's about how long do you want to wait, now many connections to any
given port, and how much data per port is being used.
Most switches specify the "Aggregated Bandwidth" and also a "Buffer"
size and you might also find a "Forwarding Rate" that you can use to
determine the performance level of a switch.
| Quote: | Another question that has occurred to me is whether it is better to use
a managed switch which makes access control lists (ACL) available or to
implement that feature in a firewall. (The rather simple need that I
have in mind is keeping one or more network stations off the internet -
and I ought to say that at present I am using IPCop which implements
iptables.)
|
If you need internal protection you can always get a firewall (even in
bridge mode) to protect select systems - it's common to isolate some
departments from others. If you want internet restriction ability, then
you do it with a firewall at the internet connection - which you should
already have.
| Quote: | Yet another question that has crossed my mind is how important is it for
a switch to have queuing?
|
It would depend on your network needs - intra server communications
between a web server and a database server might make use of it -
setting the Priority higher that is.
| Quote: | A final question is, is it just marketing hype to say that a switch is
"non-blocking". I always thought that that absence of blocking as in
basic CSMA/CD and hubs, was the key feature that made a switch different
from a hub.
|
I can't answer that one - it would seem to me that non-blocking would
mean store and forward.
As an example, a cheap non-blocking 24 port gig switch from Linksys is
about $450 online
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=507651
I would buy one for home if I needed that many ports, as it is I have 12
port gig for two networks in my home. When I setup large clients I use
either the Dell 48 port gig or a something like the Netgear Smart 48
port gig switches.
--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Not-My-Real-Name
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:53 am Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
Brian wrote:
| Quote: | In message <Vl9$3ZAE8S5BFwXV@doricnet.co.uk>, Brian
brian@clara.co.uk> writes
If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to
become 12 or more server based boxes? At present internet is
provided via a 1MB link.
Regards
Brian
Thanks Leythos and Someone.
One can learn a lot from listening to two experts debate a point.
With regard to the point that one should assess the likely load on
any network, even if that were possible with any degree of
accuracy, there would still be the problem that, as far as I can
see from the suppliers, no low-end switch specifies its switching
capacity. In fact, even the more expensive Cisco switches seem
not to specify their switching capacity. Hence what should one
assume the switching capacity of say a 16-port 100base switch is?
It surely will not be 16 x 100 Mbps - or will it?
|
You could guess, but the vendor should have this statistic handy, if not
then they usually have something to hide. Cisco usuaally publish theres,
but seems to me you need to dig a little on their web site.
| Quote: | Another question that has occurred to me is whether it is better to
use a managed switch which makes access control lists (ACL)
available or to implement that feature in a firewall.
|
It depends. You could get a Cisco Layer2/3 switch and have it act as a
DHCP/DNS server
with ACLs. However the classic setup would be to have a switch deal with
layer 2 functionality
and your Firewall manage the ACLs. I'm assuming the ACLs you mention are
for Internet access.
If that's not the case and you want ACLs because you want to setup VLANs
between say a small server farm and the PCs on this network then a layer 3
switch can handle this.
| Quote: | (The rather
simple need that I have in mind is keeping one or more network
stations off the internet - and I ought to say that at present I am
using IPCop which implements iptables.)
|
A Firewall with access restrictions will do this nicely. Even low-end
DLINK Firewalls can do this.
Alternatively you could VLAN these PCs into a seperate subnet, let the
switch route between VLANs, and have the firewall drop all traffic from the
restricted VLAN.
| Quote: | Yet another question that has crossed my mind is how important is
it for a switch to have queuing?
|
It would depend on your network load and traffic types. If you're running a
VoIP network or Videoconferencing while people are surfing or LAN backups
are going on, you'll want queuing.
| Quote: | A final question is, is it just marketing hype to say that a switch
is "non-blocking".
|
Today it is, most are, they'll queue up the packets for a time in memory.
You can still block, for example some switches allow you to limit the number
of broadcasts from a given port.
| Quote: | I always thought that that absence of blocking
as in basic CSMA/CD and hubs, was the key feature that made a
switch different from a hub.
|
A hub is a multiport repeater, a switch is a multiport bridge. That's the
key difference, but not the only one today.
Most switches go way beyond what a lowly hub is capable off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Factors for switch choice |
|
|
In message <TmcOnxCNQB6BFw+a@doricnet.co.uk>, Brian <brian@clara.co.uk>
writes
| Quote: | In message <Vl9$3ZAE8S5BFwXV@doricnet.co.uk>, Brian <brian@clara.co.uk
writes
If this is off-topic I apologise.
What factors should one consider when choosing a switch for a small
network - currently 7 XP Pro boxes peer-to-peer, but soon to become 12
or more server based boxes? At present internet is provided via a
1MB link.
|
,snip>
Thanks again Leythos and Someone.
I 'm very grateful to you.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in