Wired Networks Thread, 1GB clients and 1GB uplinks in Technical; Hello everyone,
I am currently experiencing some brain fog! My question is that our school network consists of mostly all ...
5th July 2013, 09:57 PM #1
- Rep Power
1GB clients and 1GB uplinks
I am currently experiencing some brain fog! My question is that our school network consists of mostly all Gigabit switches, which provide gigabit links to all client devices with gigabit links between switches. Our core also, operates at 1 gigabit.
My question is that surely there is some performance issues having all our clients connect to the network at 1Gb. I was thinking, would it be worthwhile making all of the client connections run at 100Mb with the uplinks and core still running at 1Gb.
Would this be better with regards ensuring that the uplinks and core are not overloaded by a few machines thrashing the 1Gb connection?
I hope the above makes sense.
IDG Tech News
5th July 2013, 10:20 PM #2
You are quite correct - it's best practice to have the edge links at least 1 'step' below the trunk links. That way, as you say, one person trying to save 30 GB of MP3s to their user area won't clog the link with 1 Gbps of traffic, the maximum they'd be able to hit is 100 Mbps, leaving plenty of bandwidth available for other users.
5th July 2013, 11:36 PM #3
I think you can use QOS to make sure that users don't hog all the bandwidth on the link.
5th July 2013, 11:38 PM #4
Or upgrade your backbone to 10Gb!
5th July 2013, 11:39 PM #5
Isn't that for prioritising certain types of traffic/packet sizes (e.g. VoIP traffic, which will be composed of smaller TCP packets), rather than limiting bandwidth? (honestly not sure!)
Originally Posted by FN-GM
6th July 2013, 09:46 AM #6
I would also agree that the core should operate at speeds an order of magnitude above the clients.
I've been berated by others for suggesting this before on this forum so I understand that it is common for schools to install 1GB/s on clients without updating their servers. In my mind it stands to reason that clients should be restricted and I only started to upgrade clients to 1GB/s after I had upgraded the servers to and the main core uplinks.
6th July 2013, 12:31 PM #7
A problem solved by using trunks or link aggregation.
If you we're to experience a single client utilising an entire gigabit uplink the trunk will kick in.
Regardless, do any of us actually have any file/disk or resource arrays capable of saturating a 1GB uplink?
I can't think of many. Normally my disk I/O bottlenecks before the LAN does?
6th July 2013, 12:35 PM #8
One aspect of 'fully blown' QoS is traffic shaping. i.e. you restrict the bandwidth available to some traffic types so you can guarantee a certain level of service to others. This is above and beyond want most standard switches are capable of doing, as they only offer the ability to prioritise traffic. However in a LAN environment this generally isn't a concern (as opposed to a WAN/Internet gateway where it's always a foremost concern) because upgrading the capacity of your core links is (relatively) cheap. So as other have said as you should be looking at having a 10Gbit core if you are insisting on 1Gbit to the desktop. If you baulk at the costs of this, you might want to look at seeing where you actually need 1Gbit to the desktop and prioritising upgrades there first.
6th July 2013, 03:07 PM #9
What are you using on your servers, parallel ATA? Modern SAS drives run at 3 or 6 Gbit/s without any network overhead.
Originally Posted by m25man
By duxbuz in forum Netbooks, PDA and Phones
Last Post: 6th February 2012, 05:19 PM
By tickmike in forum *nix
Last Post: 10th February 2008, 02:00 AM
By triggmiester in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 11th July 2007, 04:26 PM
By jwheelhouse in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 3rd July 2007, 09:15 PM
By wesleyw in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 26th February 2007, 05:08 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Tags for this Thread