|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > September 2003 > Computer room design
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Computer room design
|
|
|
| Hi all,
Could you take a look at this room again, I have a diagram posted in gif
file on the web. Here it is, you may have to enlarge it a little to see the
description. I am try to make this network mor effecient and I know there
is a way with out going to expensive along with the equipment I already
have. Just some ides if you can. Here is the site.
http://www.madbbs.com/users/borris/...nWebBrowser.gif
Here is part of the details if you cant read it:
Ok, I have a combo access point/ 4 port Ethernet DSL router, not in use yet.
I also have 2 USB wireless network cards for that. Is there any way to make
this more efficient with say a couple thousand more dollars.??
I need to connect to the network via the unconnected DSL connection, and
have all pc's connected.
| |
| =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Franke?= 2003-09-21, 6:24 am |
| "Randi" <RSaddler@stny.rr.com> wrote before:
>http://www.madbbs.com/users/borris/...nWebBrowser.gif
>
>Here is part of the details if you cant read it:
>
>Ok, I have a combo access point/ 4 port Ethernet DSL router, not in use =
yet.
>I also have 2 USB wireless network cards for that. Is there any way to =
make
>this more efficient with say a couple thousand more dollars.??
>I need to connect to the network via the unconnected DSL connection, and
>have all pc's connected.
I assume the DSL router is capable of VPN, so what I would do to
improve the performance is to replace the hubs with either one 24 port
switch or two 12 port switches, depending on the distance and options
to add cabling. (it could be more expensive to connect all the hosts
over a longer distance to a single switch).
On the existing Catalyst you should have at least one port left, so
I'd recommend to connect the router to that port through a wired
connection rather than using the wireless option. With using wireless
you would have to use one PC as a bridge, just to convert media from
air to cable. And you would create a single point of failure for the
case of interferences. Those interferences could easily cut the whole
network from the DSL connection, so I would avoid using that.
If I understand your goal right, it should look similar to the
following diagram after you optimized it according to my proposals:
(5 PCs) (5 PCs) (5 PCs)
////// ////// //////
[DSL-router]-----[Switch_1]----[Switch_2]----[Switch_3]--(1 port left)
////// ////// //////
(5 PCs) (5 PCs) (5 PCs)
By replacing the hubs with switches every PC would have the whole
network bandwidth available, while in your current configuration the
PCs connected to hub_1 and hub_2 need to share the bandwidth. Also you
avoid collisions by using switches or if you don't work with full
duplex you would at least reduce them to a minimum.
Assuming it is a 100Mbit/s network and currently 5 PCs are connected
via hub_1 and hub_2 uses another port of hub_1, those 5 PCs and hub_2
have only less than 17Mbit/s available, while the PCs on hub_2 need to
share those 17Mbit/s and thus have just about 2Mbit/s available
bandwidth. If its just a 10Mbit/s network you have to divide that by
10, which I wouldn't call performance at all.
With that one free port you still have the option to extend the
network or to place a bridging PC (as described above) that connects
back to the router wirelessly, but that would require you to configure
spanning tree and it would require the routers switch ports to support
spanning tree too (I doubt it does).
regards
Andr=E9
--=20
=46or e-mail use plain-text only, please.
HTML and attachments will be silently discarded.
| |
| Randi 2003-09-21, 11:25 am |
| Andre thanks for the fantastic advice. I believe you are simply saying DSL
connection -------------DSL router ----------switch one-------swicth
two--------switch three, with all the pcs connected to the switches. I was
wondering since the routher has 4 ports couldnt you connect each switch to
the router? If possible.
Thank you ver y much,
Kelsey
"André Franke" <dump.it@digital-filestore.de> wrote in message
news:s4qqmv4lr7uoq2h94jnu6mb5s
o8f19rubr@4ax.com...
"Randi" <RSaddler@stny.rr.com> wrote before:
>http://www.madbbs.com/users/borris/...nWebBrowser.gif
>
>Here is part of the details if you cant read it:
>
>Ok, I have a combo access point/ 4 port Ethernet DSL router, not in use
yet.
>I also have 2 USB wireless network cards for that. Is there any way to
make
>this more efficient with say a couple thousand more dollars.??
>I need to connect to the network via the unconnected DSL connection, and
>have all pc's connected.
I assume the DSL router is capable of VPN, so what I would do to
improve the performance is to replace the hubs with either one 24 port
switch or two 12 port switches, depending on the distance and options
to add cabling. (it could be more expensive to connect all the hosts
over a longer distance to a single switch).
On the existing Catalyst you should have at least one port left, so
I'd recommend to connect the router to that port through a wired
connection rather than using the wireless option. With using wireless
you would have to use one PC as a bridge, just to convert media from
air to cable. And you would create a single point of failure for the
case of interferences. Those interferences could easily cut the whole
network from the DSL connection, so I would avoid using that.
If I understand your goal right, it should look similar to the
following diagram after you optimized it according to my proposals:
(5 PCs) (5 PCs) (5 PCs)
////// ////// //////
[DSL-router]-----[Switch_1]----[Switch_2]----[Switch_3]--(1 port left)
////// ////// //////
(5 PCs) (5 PCs) (5 PCs)
By replacing the hubs with switches every PC would have the whole
network bandwidth available, while in your current configuration the
PCs connected to hub_1 and hub_2 need to share the bandwidth. Also you
avoid collisions by using switches or if you don't work with full
duplex you would at least reduce them to a minimum.
Assuming it is a 100Mbit/s network and currently 5 PCs are connected
via hub_1 and hub_2 uses another port of hub_1, those 5 PCs and hub_2
have only less than 17Mbit/s available, while the PCs on hub_2 need to
share those 17Mbit/s and thus have just about 2Mbit/s available
bandwidth. If its just a 10Mbit/s network you have to divide that by
10, which I wouldn't call performance at all.
With that one free port you still have the option to extend the
network or to place a bridging PC (as described above) that connects
back to the router wirelessly, but that would require you to configure
spanning tree and it would require the routers switch ports to support
spanning tree too (I doubt it does).
regards
André
--
For e-mail use plain-text only, please.
HTML and attachments will be silently discarded.
|
|
|
|
|