easy netwokjing question...

This should likely be fairly easy for most to answer...

I am just looking for a little information before I go ahead with a wiring
project...

We have a 16 port gigabit switch which all of our servers are plugged into.
This switch still has 5 open ports available.

I am doing some rewiring in our design office to put the designers on the
gigabit backbone as they all have computers with gigabit NICs in them. By
doing this I am hoping to improve network speed somewhat for them when
loading and saving drawings to and from the file server. My question is
this...

I have 7 machines to rewire. I can cable the 4 heaviest designers direct to
the switch that the servers are plugged into and then run another ethernet
cable from teh 5th available port to another 8 port gigabit switch that I
have available. From that 8 port switch, I would then cable each of the
remaining three users.

OR...

To save on wiring, I could just run one ethernet cable from my 16 port
switch (that the servers are plugged into) to the 8 port switch and then
cable the 7 users from that 8 port switch... That would save me some cabling
BUT it is also going to cause more of a network bottleneck in that all 7
users will be using the one line back to the servers - as opposed to trying
to cable 4 users direct to the switch that the serves are plugged into...

Is it really going to make that big of a difference to cable them from the 8
port vs cabling some users direct to the same switch the servers are plugged
into??

Thoughts????

Thanks, Brad

"Brad Pears" <> wrote in message
news:...

> Is it really going to make that big of a difference to cable them from the
> 8 port vs cabling some users direct to the same switch the servers are
> plugged into??

Gigabit is gigabit is gigabit is gigabit. If everything is running at
gigabit speed than that is what you are going to get no matter what you do.
There isn't going to be any additional speed from anywhere. However you can
slow the speed by running multiple users over the same "backbone"
cable,...but even then that is only if they are transfering file at exactly
the same moment. If they are transfering at different moments or at only
slightly overlapping moments then no difference (good or bad) is going to be
noticed.

Normally a Backbone runs at a faster speed than the Hosts and it runs from
specific ports on the switch. For example a 100mbps LAN that uses a
1000mbps backbone. This way there could be 10 users hitting the backbone
at exactly the same moment and it could handle it.

If you have a completely 1000mbps (gigabit) LAN and your Backbone is also
1000mbps then you don't even really have a "backbone",...all you have is an
over-loaded cable connecting the switches together. It would need a 10gig
Backbone link with proper cabling capable of handling that high of speed
with 10gig uplink ports in the switches to handle them.

With all that out of the way,...most of the time I run into a question like
this the person is trying to solve and "imagined" problem that does not
exist. These file transfers do not take more than a few seconds at
worst,...and they do not happen constantly. They happen when the user opens
the file and when they close the file,...and that is it. It is not
"constant traffic",...the LAN could be completely quiet the rest of the
time. This might occur a few times an hour as the user "saves" the file
along the way as the designer works on the file. this is by no means a
heavey load on the LAN. The difference in speed of opening/saving the file
between 1gig or 10gig (and maybe even 100mbps) is probably only going to be
one to three seconds,...that is not going to "hold up" anyone up in getting
their work done.

I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to make the LAN more efficient,..you
should,...I'm just saying that you have to keep everything in
perspective,...focus on what matters,...focus on real measurable tangable
problems.

--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Back on your original question. One good thing you could do in this case is
to replace the switch with one that has more ports so that all of these
users can be on the same physical switch that the File Server is on.


--
Phillip Windell

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Yes, I think that is a good idea... What I will do is run some extra cables
and when I can get approval to replace the exisitng 16port switch that the
servers are plugged into with a 24 port switch, I'll just hook them up. We
are on a very very tight budget right now so I am not sure when it will be
approved.

Thanks for your help...

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Back on your original question. One good thing you could do in this case
> is to replace the switch with one that has more ports so that all of these
> users can be on the same physical switch that the File Server is on.
>
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>

Thanks for the response. You make a lot of sense for sure. I did a test a
few weeks back with one of the designers machines by cabling it directly to
the gigabit switch and it was quite different... The logon/off process was
quite a bit snappier (he runs login and logoff scripts) and I also noticed
that opening and saving files was a lot faster. It was then that I thought
that I may as well do this being as we have the capabilities and other than
my time, it's really a no cost job. We have 1000' of CAT5e cable and the
available switches so are good to go.

Again, I appreciate your response...

Thanks, Brad

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:OqS$...
> "Brad Pears" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>> Is it really going to make that big of a difference to cable them from
>> the 8 port vs cabling some users direct to the same switch the servers
>> are plugged into??
>
> Gigabit is gigabit is gigabit is gigabit. If everything is running at
> gigabit speed than that is what you are going to get no matter what you
> do. There isn't going to be any additional speed from anywhere. However
> you can slow the speed by running multiple users over the same "backbone"
> cable,...but even then that is only if they are transfering file at
> exactly the same moment. If they are transfering at different moments or
> at only slightly overlapping moments then no difference (good or bad) is
> going to be noticed.
>
> Normally a Backbone runs at a faster speed than the Hosts and it runs from
> specific ports on the switch. For example a 100mbps LAN that uses a
> 1000mbps backbone. This way there could be 10 users hitting the backbone
> at exactly the same moment and it could handle it.
>
> If you have a completely 1000mbps (gigabit) LAN and your Backbone is also
> 1000mbps then you don't even really have a "backbone",...all you have is
> an over-loaded cable connecting the switches together. It would need a
> 10gig Backbone link with proper cabling capable of handling that high of
> speed with 10gig uplink ports in the switches to handle them.
>
> With all that out of the way,...most of the time I run into a question
> like this the person is trying to solve and "imagined" problem that does
> not exist. These file transfers do not take more than a few seconds at
> worst,...and they do not happen constantly. They happen when the user
> opens the file and when they close the file,...and that is it. It is not
> "constant traffic",...the LAN could be completely quiet the rest of the
> time. This might occur a few times an hour as the user "saves" the file
> along the way as the designer works on the file. this is by no means a
> heavey load on the LAN. The difference in speed of opening/saving the
> file between 1gig or 10gig (and maybe even 100mbps) is probably only going
> to be one to three seconds,...that is not going to "hold up" anyone up in
> getting their work done.
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to make the LAN more efficient,..you
> should,...I'm just saying that you have to keep everything in
> perspective,...focus on what matters,...focus on real measurable tangable
> problems.
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
> Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>

Brad Pears wrote:
> This should likely be fairly easy for most to answer...
>
> I am just looking for a little information before I go ahead with a wiring
> project...
>
> We have a 16 port gigabit switch which all of our servers are plugged into.
> This switch still has 5 open ports available.
>
> I am doing some rewiring in our design office to put the designers on the
> gigabit backbone as they all have computers with gigabit NICs in them. By
> doing this I am hoping to improve network speed somewhat for them when
> loading and saving drawings to and from the file server. My question is
> this...
>
> I have 7 machines to rewire. I can cable the 4 heaviest designers direct to
> the switch that the servers are plugged into and then run another ethernet
> cable from teh 5th available port to another 8 port gigabit switch that I
> have available. From that 8 port switch, I would then cable each of the
> remaining three users.
>
> OR...
>
> To save on wiring, I could just run one ethernet cable from my 16 port
> switch (that the servers are plugged into) to the 8 port switch and then
> cable the 7 users from that 8 port switch... That would save me some cabling
> BUT it is also going to cause more of a network bottleneck in that all 7
> users will be using the one line back to the servers - as opposed to trying
> to cable 4 users direct to the switch that the serves are plugged into...
>
> Is it really going to make that big of a difference to cable them from the 8
> port vs cabling some users direct to the same switch the servers are plugged
> into??
>
> Thoughts????
>
> Thanks, Brad
>
>
Hi, Brad!

The question I have is where are your other users (secretaries,
bookkeepers, attorneys, etc.) plugged in? Eleven servers seems a LOT of
backbone infrastructure for seven users.

That being said, your 16 port server switch is just that - your
backbone. Your other switches plug into that, or a 'user' backbone. I
would put the designers on their own >12< port GB switch (giving a
little expansion room), which is then up linked to the user backbone
switch.

Another option, depending on your budget, is to have a separate designer
file store. I'm assuming that these are multi-mb/gb CAD files or
something like that? That being the case, their file activity may be
dragging down performance for other users. I would set them up with a
separate file store for routine use (a PC with a large disk), do shadow
copies during the day, and then on Friday night use a script to tar
-cvzf that directory to your main file store for weekly backup. Using
some form of *nix means you don't have to fight for another server
license. (I'd look into consolidating some of those servers, too.)

More information, please!
Kara