Re: How to force machine to choose a network.

In article <1124977005.178905.229620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ninja67 <Ninja67@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:Walter Roberson wrote:
:> In article <1124917045.871254.176390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
:> Ninja67 <Ninja67@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:> :Yikes! I didn't even think of listing my OS in my post... my bad. I
:> :guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
:> :Linux on their users' workstations.

:> "On gmail, no-one knows if you're a Fortune 400 company."

:True, but I did mention that we had 4000 machines/desktops. That
:should have been a sign that we are pretty big.

In the usual industry categorizations, 4000 desktops is only considered
SMB, Small To Medium Business.

My local department has more than 450 networked devices for 150
employees. We're about 1/25th of of our overall organization,
so our overall organization probably has more than 10000 networked
systems. As I recall, we aren't big enough to make the Fortune 3000.

The only official organization-wide policy about choice of OS is,
"We don't -promise- that non-Windows systems or pre-Windows XP will work
with the official email system or the integrated financial system."


:> :I guess I just figured there weren't many fortune 400 companies running
:> :Linux on their users' workstations.

You weren't talking about a large number of machines, you were
talking about exactly -two- machines with special characteristics
relative to your other machines. With your mention of 'firewire',
I would have guessed Apple MacIntosh running OS X. 'firewire' is
Apple's pre-standard product, not used in the Windows world (which
uses the IEEE standard number.)

You also mentioned that the regular LAN was 10BaseT. We started
deploying 100 Mb six years ago, and we were definitely not "early
adopters". My -expectation- would be that a Fortune 400 company would
invest the infrastructure resources it needed in order to communicate
efficiently.

Your Windows desktops all have 100 Mb built in (unless you've been
holding back to 5 year old computers too), and any replacements will
have gigabit built in. Reputable managed gigabit layer 3 switches can
be found for less than $US100/port ($US15/port for unmanaged
consumer-level level 2 gigabit switches.) These days, I don't
think it makes economic sense to stick with 10BaseT unless the
company is -really- cash-strapped. If layer 3 gigabit isn't affordable,
then go onto eBay and buy a bunch of used 100 Mb managed
switches (about $US10/port) and deploy those -- or to save shipping
and handling costs, you can probably buy them by the pallet-load from
used equipment vendors.
--
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quad Questions
    ... Well they won't offer it as an option but check the machines available ... Well, I do use wireless on my desktop at home, but, no other gigabit ... > fit the wireless card. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: SCSI network
    ... can i make external SCSI bus through all machines and use it to transmit IP ... Gigabit NICs and a cheap ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Quad Questions
    ... >>> transfers I'd use gigabit. ... > Plenty of machines with Gigabit that haven't got FW800, ... I use gigabit at work for sharing between 3 machines, ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Wi-Fi data transfer, what sort of speeds should I be expecting?
    ... Well no because it is different connectivity. ... The gigabit networking on machines is for people wanting to come back ... the gigabit network is a x-serve and they want to shift big data. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Home gigabit network
    ... my point wasn't that the overheads stop you getting to gigabit ... *desktop* class machines are not up to the task of providing sustained ... throughput, but if you take of the hard disk and then stick back out on ... 2Gbps in effect) to another machine also with bonded ports. ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)