We are not spending any money on W7 upgrades - we have an EES agreement which takes care of all of that. Only physical upgrades may be RAM and the £200 or so that would cost will make no difference to the core!
Obviously it's not free - it's already in place. It is FAR less than the alternatives/perpetual licensing especially when you factor in server and CAL.
Anyway, rather off topic. Learned yesterday about the marketing bullsh** that is "Mac Table Size" and that 8000 Entries does not, as logic dictates, mean 8000 Mac addresses in the table. It means 8000 bytes of mac addresses, so thats about 512 MACs. And then it's marketed even more, hard drive like, and rounded down to 500 MACs. We certainly have over that amount, and on a flat network, we are effectively flooding the MAC tables which in turn stops routing working properly, turning the switches into hubs.
That and another failed procurve *shakes fist* - we're on our way. New switches being ordered but in the meantime we're looking to learn about v-lans damned quick!
I've enclosed our VLAN topology design for reference.
HP did have some of its lowest end switches made by other verdors and rebranded before the 3com buyout so it is still a possibility. You are right that VLANS should help if your hitting MAC table limits and propper use of STP (full on uplink ports) portfast/RSTP on desktop links will also help, you also need to make sure that the core is elected the master bridge woich you should be able to do by setting it bridge priority high and making sure it is turned on first.
It does sound like you are making progres as to the causes of your slowdowns though which is good as you are now able to implement ways to mitigate them.
Cybernerd please keep your ludditrey to yourself, not everyone is happy running a ten year old OS with limitid support and lesser security. Windows has moved on and so have many users. This is not the topic of this thread either and distracts from the problem at hand (no its not Windows 7).
Last edited by SYNACK; 24th November 2011 at 04:40 PM.
Synaesthesia what are you going to use for routing between the VLANS as you'll need a layer 3 device to route between the subnets. You may be able to use a server with a bunch of NICs but that is going to have huge latency compared to a dedicated layer 3 switch (not sure if you have one floating around there).
Was setting up 3 switches today with a "core" (a 48 port 3com 4500) so I could experiment with Vlans so we know what we're talking about before we dive in!
Couldn't find the IP address so looked at DHCP leases on the server. Oddly enough we found a DHCP entry with no name. Pinged... interesting. Went to its web address. HP ProCurve 2626. Ugh! So where the hell is it? Half an hour later we tracked it down to serving a staffroom and a few more machines. 100MB switch. Can't have been helping so that's being pulled.
Another procurve failed too, but HP thankfully are damn good with swapping so a new one is on the way.
Think we'll be plumping for the HP V1910-48G to bolster the core - it certainly has to be an improvement!
Synaesthesia - that V series switch does look to have limited layer 3 ability so should be able to route between VLANs. You'll want to slice up your network into subnets so that it can be routed as just putting the same client range accross multiple VLANs will break connectivity. The subnets are the structure that allow communication between sections.
For DHCP you can look into DHCP helper on the core switch which takes DHCP requests from the different segments and fowards them to your server on whatever segment it may be on.
Cheers, I've also been looking at those features but have avoided playing with anything unnecessarily.
My quick tuppence on the XP vs 7 is a simple one. If there's any modern system (post Core2Duo era) that runs better on XP than on 7 then it's severely broken.
If it comes down to money the infrastructure needs to be in place before the bells and whistles.
The 3Com stuff should be alright, I was not to happy about how the company itself handled itself but their hardware was usually fine and now they have corporate oversite from a different company. There again hp is not exactly run by champions at the moment (WebOS saga) but hopefully with the sacking of yet another CEO they will get back on track. Even with all this their network gear has always seemed really solid and well featured which is why we stick with them.
As to upgrades, at a certain point it is no longer even worth having the infrastructure if your network is that old and cack that nonone wants to use it or needs a training manual from musem archives to be able to understand it. User experience and familiarity matters to but we're drifting off topic again.
The network loading caused by gigabit to the edge all depends on the usage patterns of the systems and the users, in many situations those pipes are not saturated as things get done quicker so that load disapates quicker too. There may be issues in certain deployments but that is something that can be dealt with with QoS and further tweaks/upgrades later. 100mbit to the desktop is not the answer, it is deffereing the problem and having gig ability gives you that much more flexibility in how you distribute the bandwidth if you need to.
Last edited by SYNACK; 24th November 2011 at 06:57 PM.
What are the hp port fast commands does anyone have an example? All solutions on google always end up talking about the cisco commands.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)