Connecting multiple switches...

[Antone]

ok, i plan to run a LAN with around 45 people. I have FS116 Netgear(16 port), FS524 Netgear (24 port) and a kingston dual speed hub(8 port).

Besides asigning each computer on the network with an Ip address.
What is exactly involved in connecting these 3 switches??
Do i need crossover cables??

By the way, they all have uplink ports...

Thanks in advance.

 

[jimbopalmer]

Make the 24 port the main if you can, an hang a straight through from the up link of the 16 to a normal port of the 24, same for the 8, uplink on the 8 to normal on the 24.

the uplink on the 24 is only needed if you need it for internet access to a router, if so it is available I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[jimbopalmer]

if all of the switches are in one area, load the least interactive devices on the 8 port hub (printers, as an example, or manager's PCs Some device without a lot of demand)

if you have devices that still run at 10 meg, putting them on the 16 port seem like a plan. (15 ports of 10 should fit fine in one port of 100)

as many 100 meg users as possible and all the servers should be on the 24 port switch.

as you buy more switches (and you will, you only have 44 free ports before you add printers and Internet access, for 45 people, so growth will have to mean more purchases) remember that big switches (and even better, cascadeable switches) are better than many little switches.

if you are using multiple switches because your users are in multiple locations, this stategy is not available to you. just be sure your servers and internet router are not pluged into the Kensington hub I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[Antone]

ok, thanks for the advice.

 

[Antone]

Hmmm, say for example... there where 15 x 100mbit users on the 16 port hub, would the bandwidth be limited to the other computers on the other hubs? cause the 15 PC's are all using the 100mbit uplink, the 24 port switch...

 

[Antone]

ok ignore that previous post...

Hmmm, say for example... there where 15 x 100mbit users on the 16 port hub, would the bandwidth be limited to the other computers on the other hubs? cause the 15 PC's are all using the 100mbit uplink, to the 24 port switch...

 

[jimbopalmer]

ethernet does not reserve bandwidth, so 15 light 100 meg users have just as much speed as 15 10 meg users, but either way the total going up the uplink port won't exceed 100 meg


on the switches EACH port gets 100 meg if needed, full duplex is possible, so the internal circuitry need to run faster than 100 meg. on the 16 port it ideally runs at 1.6 gig.

this is great if every port is just as likely to send to every other port. if all devices ONLY talk to a central server, you can be bound by the speed of the server connection. Whether you have one switch or 3 is not an issue if all devices chat with the server, the server connection will always be the bottleneck.

In reality however you often hav many servers, a router is doing DHCP and Internet access to every box, networked printers are getting print jobs from every box (either directly or via a print server), one server may hold applications while another holds data, backups may be done over the net. (all of these servers may BE one box, but they do not have to be)

once you see how many server you have you may find you have 1 meg to internet, 10 meg to a printer, 100 meg to a file server and 100 meg on a shared application. the 18 users on the 24 port switch can get to a total of 211 meg of services. the small switches can only get to 100 meg as they are bottlenecked by the uplink, which they were not in a single server situation. by putting the least demanding users on the small switches we reduce the possibility that the bottleneck ever hurts performance.

it may be of course, that your networks bottleneck's are all in typing speed and never in the elctronics. (My wife archetecural firm, whose network services are described above, has no bottlenecks that I can find except in their speed at the keyboard making drawings) then there is no difference between a designed network and one that just grew. Since it is rare that more than one person saves or loads in 10 minutes, their network is idle over 99% of the time, and a hub appears to be as fast as a switch.

in a hub, there can only be one packet moving at a time.
in a switch, each port can be sending and receiving one packet. But if all devices want to talk to one server, that server can still only recieve one packet at a time. in a switch where all services are remote, the uplink port is a 'server'

Bottom line, philosophically, I like power users 'near' the services, and idle devices remote from the services, but unless there really is a performance bottleneck, it does not matter. I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[Antone]

Hmmm...im not connecting printers, routers and stuff like that. Im running a LAN party were all users are constantly playing games and sharing files to all other users on the network, just wondering if this network is going to get a bit laggy?

Would you suggest Gigabit?

Plus i want good switches / hubs that i can eventually connect with more and more switches and hubs, as the LAN gets bigger. So what are some decent swicthes / hubs?

 

[jimbopalmer]

Ah the "Technical Work Forums for Computer Professionals" has been thrown out the window, that will reduce my comments from experienced advice to mere rumor.

I am assuming then that no downloading of programs is happening, solely game playing.

latency is suddenly MUCH more important than throughput. This article is written by a game developer.

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html

but the bottom line is that almost any all switched ethernet will be fine for gaming. I am less sure the guys on the kensington hub have a fair shake, you can use it as a handicap on the best players.

(random rambling) there are two types of switches 'store and forward' and 'cut through': for business use store and forward is favored since it is the more robust, the entire packet is error checked before it is sent on, for gamers I suspect a cut through switch is better, as it writes out the packet as it is still being received, lowering latency. I have no idea how large a group you need befoe anyone can tell.

gigabit might help if you were moving large files, but I supect that 100 meg will provide as good latency end to end as 100 to the pc with a gig core would. latecy will never improve beyond the weakest link. (in my 1000 node network, the PCs all report '<10 ms' latency, real computers which can keep better track show about 4ms over 4 miles

I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[Antone]

Dude, that link doesnt work....

 

[Antone]

ohh hang on...i took the &quot;but&quot; off...all good...