+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
Wired Networks Thread, Network Speed Between Switches in Technical; There is contention *everywhere* most clients always end up with a proportion of the available bandwidth dependant on the current ...
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    67
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    There is contention *everywhere* most clients always end up with a proportion of the available bandwidth dependant on the current contention ratio of the link. Two clients on two switches could use all the bandwidth from an iscsi SAN, but we don't restrict uplinks to 100Mb. If you really need some traffic to be prioritised then there is always QoS.
    But it's much more difficult to 100% utilise a 1 or 2 gigabit connection with 48 hosts @ 100mbps.

    100Mb is pretty slow for a lot of applications now, even 1Gb is starting to limit some clients/applications.
    If that is the case then I would have thought that even a 10 gigabit uplink isn't going to cut it.

    I'm not trying to challenge anyone, I'm just here to learn.

  2. #32
    DMcCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Isle of Wight
    Posts
    3,439
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 490 Times in 430 Posts
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehmet View Post
    But it's much more difficult to 100% utilise a 1 or 2 gigabit connection with 48 hosts @ 100mbps.



    If that is the case then I would have thought that even a 10 gigabit uplink isn't going to cut it.

    I'm not trying to challenge anyone, I'm just here to learn.
    Using the full 1Gb for an extended time could be an issue, but there is nothing wrong with high utilisation. It just means you are providing data to the clients as fast as possible, with a reasonably priced uplink. 10Gb if you can afford it sure, but it's not going to be a problem without.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hey hey hey, stay outta my shed. STAY OUT OF MY SHED.
    Posts
    1,011
    Thank Post
    238
    Thanked 190 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehmet View Post
    But that's going to mean it's only going to take a couple of desktops to start a file transfer with a server and the 2 gig links to be 100% utilised -- is that a good idea? Also, will the servers be able to cope with this kind of bandwidth?

    I'm just a student, I don't have any real-world experience; I could be wrong.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehmet View Post
    But it's much more difficult to 100% utilise a 1 or 2 gigabit connection with 48 hosts @ 100mbps.

    If that is the case then I would have thought that even a 10 gigabit uplink isn't going to cut it.

    I'm not trying to challenge anyone, I'm just here to learn.
    Ah fair enough. Lets back up a bit and discuss something fundamental about capacity on modern network devices.

    Think of bandwidth/throughput on switches (and capacity on servers for that matter) as a cake you're trying to cut into slices and share between your clients, so the more clients you have the more there are sharing the cake. Your posts suggest your current thinking sees it as more like filling a jug - e.g. if you have a 2gb uplink and 2 1Gb clients the link is full, which is not the case.

    To stretch these analogies further, buying a 10Gb capable switch as an upgrade to a 1Gb one, or combining several 1Gb conections, means you a larger 'cake' to share, which can work both in the sense of allowing more clients to have a share, and/or allowing those clients to have a bigger share.

    More importantly, the clients sharing the switch are not all broadcasting at full pelt all the time. The nature of both ethernet connections and TCP/IP tends to lead to 'bursts' of data transmission, which lends itself quite well to sharing.

    We've got edge switches that comfortably serve 300 devices, for example (HP 5412ZLs) with dual 10Gb uplinks and bandwidth has not been an issue on any of these.
    Last edited by Roberto; 21st December 2012 at 08:51 PM.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    67
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    ...


    Ah fair enough. Lets back up a bit and discuss something fundamental about capacity on modern network devices.

    Think of bandwidth/throughput on switches (and capacity on servers for that matter) as a cake you're trying to cut into slices and share between your clients, so the more clients you have the more there are sharing the cake. Your posts suggest your current thinking sees it as more like filling a jug - e.g. if you have a 2gb uplink and 2 1Gb clients the link is full, which is not the case.

    To stretch these analogies further, buying a 10Gb capable switch as an upgrade to a 1Gb one, or combining several 1Gb conections, means you a larger 'cake' to share, which can work both in the sense of allowing more clients to have a share, and/or allowing those clients to have a bigger share.

    More importantly, the clients sharing the switch are not all broadcasting at full pelt all the time. The nature of both ethernet connections and TCP/IP tends to lead to 'bursts' of data transmission, which lends itself quite well to sharing.

    We've got edge switches that comfortably serve 300 devices, for example (HP 5412ZLs) with dual 10Gb uplinks and bandwidth has not been an issue on any of these.
    I think perhaps I am not explaining my concern well enough.

    8 access layer switches connected to a core switch. 1 of these switches has 48 AP's connected to it which services 500 wireless devices and therefore has a 10 gigabit uplink to the core. The remaining 7 have dual 1 gigabit ethernet links uplinks (so that's a 2 gigabit link). The server is connected directly to the core switch via 10 gigabit ethernet.

    If you have such a set up, it is very easy to 100% utilise the 2 gigabit uplinks if the desktops are also running at gig. I imagine a couple of large file transfers would do it. Now how much utilisation will there be on the 10 gigabit server link? Will the server be able to cope?

    I understand that this is only a valid concern if users are transferring large files; and if they are not, then no problem! But if they are not, then why spend on switches with 10 gigabit ports? What's the difference in price between a gig switch and a 10 gig switch? I understand that it's good to plan for the future, but if your network traffic increases so much, then I would have though even a 10 gig uplink isn't going to cut it. I don't know, you guys know more than I do.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    521
    Thank Post
    26
    Thanked 73 Times in 64 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    You need to look at what the the users on these wireless devices will be doing on the network and i bet 80% of the time they will be using it for internet access. If that is indeed the case 1gb uplinks arnt going to be your bottle neck its going to be your broadband connection/ web filtering etc.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    110
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by DMcCoy View Post
    If you don't have IGMP filtering on the edge switches too, you will often get caught out by printers etc slowing down the multicast. The multicast is only going to go as fast as the slowest device that responds (until it's dropped), often a good way to spot failing drives if a machine drops out of a ghost session repeatedly!
    I tested in different (computer class) rooms with 16 to 32 computers, no printer, nothing. computers are decent. copying GB files from one to another I get ~115 MB/s. That´s real Gbit/s. Copying that one from one class room to another I get the same performance.

    What throughput do you get? Which NIC driver to you use? Does anyone use some other multicast imaging tool?
    Last edited by snoerre; 22nd December 2012 at 08:06 PM.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hey hey hey, stay outta my shed. STAY OUT OF MY SHED.
    Posts
    1,011
    Thank Post
    238
    Thanked 190 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehmet View Post
    I think perhaps I am not explaining my concern well enough.
    I understand perfectly well what you're trying to say. Please read my reply again with the assumption that I understand what you're trying to say and that I'm attempting to explain to you why your concerns aren't quite right, rather than with the assumption that I've misunderstood you...

  8. Thanks to Roberto from:

    Mehmet (23rd December 2012)

  9. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    67
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    I understand perfectly well what you're trying to say. Please read my reply again with the assumption that I understand what you're trying to say and that I'm attempting to explain to you why your concerns aren't quite right, rather than with the assumption that I've misunderstood you...
    I understand what you are saying. Thank you for sharing your knowledge

  10. #39
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,485
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    Thanks for the replies, everyone.

    So, generally the consensus seems to be to provision 10Gb if I can afford it, especially when laying new cables, but not to worry too much about it just now if that isn't possible. Yes?

  11. #40

    Ric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,590
    Thank Post
    109
    Thanked 762 Times in 593 Posts
    Rep Power
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by enjay View Post
    Thanks for the replies, everyone.

    So, generally the consensus seems to be to provision 10Gb if I can afford it, especially when laying new cables, but not to worry too much about it just now if that isn't possible. Yes?
    Yes.

    Also consider what would happen if that 'core' switch fails. Is it worth buying two switches and running a slightly more redundant setup? Of course this gets more difficult if you have physical servers as you won't be able to span your aggregated links across switches.

  12. #41

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,660
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Ric_ View Post
    Yes.

    Also consider what would happen if that 'core' switch fails. Is it worth buying two switches and running a slightly more redundant setup? Of course this gets more difficult if you have physical servers as you won't be able to span your aggregated links across switches.
    Redundant setups are great, if you can afford it, but to do it properly, you don't just need a second switch, you need double the GBICs too, double the fibre cores etc...

    To do that here, we would have to find a further £7500 for GBICs and patch leads alone...

  13. #42
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,485
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    I have a spare switch, a spare pair of GBICs and a spare fibre patch lead (plus box-loads of Cat5e of course). This provides redundancy for most eventualities, and next-day delivery provides for the rest.

    The only eventuality to catch me out so far is when a power cut killed two switches simultaneously, however using an old print server which had a 4-port switch built in, I was able to provide service to critical users whilst getting the replacement switches ordered.

  14. #43

    Ric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,590
    Thank Post
    109
    Thanked 762 Times in 593 Posts
    Rep Power
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Redundant setups are great, if you can afford it, but to do it properly, you don't just need a second switch, you need double the GBICs too, double the fibre cores etc...

    To do that here, we would have to find a further £7500 for GBICs and patch leads alone...
    Sounds cheap to me

    I was only throwing it in there as a consideration that often gets overlooked. Many people cannot afford it and 24-48 hours downtime is acceptable.

  15. #44


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Redundant setups are great, if you can afford it, but to do it properly, you don't just need a second switch, you need double the GBICs too, double the fibre cores etc...

    To do that here, we would have to find a further £7500 for GBICs and patch leads alone...
    You probably spend more than that on SIMS alone!
    Definitely worth doing.

  16. #45

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,660
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,444 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    You probably spend more than that on SIMS alone!
    Definitely worth doing.
    Oh, the extra switch would work out as another £12.5k. So, £20k - my GBICs bit was indicative of the extra cost here.

    As I said, its a great idea, but expensive to do.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Point to point network speed test tools
    By tarquel in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26th February 2013, 10:49 PM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 26th March 2012, 04:24 PM
  3. Testing network speed
    By Ayaz in forum Windows
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19th November 2010, 09:24 AM
  4. Wireless networks speeds i did not know this...?
    By Uraken in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26th February 2008, 07:43 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •