Re: Large network question
- From: adykes@xxxxxxxxx (Al Dykes)
- Date: 23 Mar 2006 13:59:54 -0500
In article <1143124476.177692.87990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<whytwelve13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for your replies, it was very important to hear these things
from you. I will just briefly summarize all the threats that you all
have addressed and some that I add. I ask you once again to comment on
these, since all these comments were extremely useful. I will have some
references to my first post.
I will have to use gigabit swtiches between main floor switches (MFSs),
since other kinds would be easily saturated by the possible load. The
building has some cabling, it needs to be tested and some (or all) of
the cables surely must be replaced. PCs are not my concern - I am here
just to build the network. Thus, security is not my primary concern. In
order of importance, these are the risks:
- Feasibility - It is very important that any kind of network is built,
- Downtime - It should work most of the time, but it is not a problem
if it breaks even for a whole day. Naturally, the network should be
built to avoid these problems. Downtime due to overload is not a
problem, since the users will be warned about the network capacity. I
am thinking about making some restrictions about the load each of the
computers can impose to the network. However, this is probably not
possible with switches only,
- Cost - I count at around $10k for cables, switches and routers.
Computers exist already,
- Security - I don't take this too important. The users will be
responsible, since the network will not be in my control. Each user
will be able to setup the computer as (s)he wants. They will be warned
about such possibilities (e.g. virues),
- Scalability - Absolutely not important. The network should work with
current capacities and it is not important to extend it. Of course, I
will not miss the opportunity to make it extensible, but if that would
increase any other risk, it's out of the question.
Considering this, do you agree with the above comments? Also, are they
feasible with switches only? Routers are probably too expensive to put
one per floor. Maybe a few routers will be enough. Do you think that
using routers to control the network is a better solution then using
(un)managed switches?
About the comment that "peer-to-peer file sharing ... is going to be
chaotic at best" and the next comment that I need a Windows server...
It will probably happen - a dedicated server to manage the needs of
this network only. That is, WWW server and DNS server at least. Do you
think putting a DNS will solve this problem? DHCP is not important
right now, but it could be activated later. All users will be
instructed to statically bind their computers to the specific address.
I will do the first-time configuration of all computers, so this will
probably not be the problem. The computers should not be
floor-isolated, i.e. peer-to-peer file sharing should work accross the
whole building. Printing is not important (i.e. if bad, then we won't
do it).
No "transient devices", like laptops or such are planned. The network
is a cable-only variant. As I mentioned, scalability the last problem I
will address. The wiring is totaly feasible, I have explicit contract
with the owner of the building to do what I need. "You want as few
layers of devices as practical" - I know that this is true, but the
structure of the building makes it easier to do it 3-5 switches per
floor, 1-3 main floor GBE switches. How much will this impact the
performance? Virus-checks, e-mails, auto-updates and such are not
counted in - i.e. I will not put such servers. WWW is probably the only
user-friendly server I will possibly put. E-mails are very unimportant
in this setting, because of the current (and free) in-building
telephone lines.
Internet connection should be "meaty", but as I mentioned better
anything than nothing. I consider that router can be configured to
somehow restrict the access to the users that overload the network
and/or Internet connection too much. If not, then at least a some
software can be installed on the computer to do that. What do you think
about this?
Does anybody have some practical info about this? Anybody that fits in
this situation (considering all the above metioned things, especially
$)? The practical info would be very appreciated, because that is what
I mostly lack about the networks of this size.
At the end, thanks again for all your comments!
Call up your local phone companly ISP service and ask for the business
internet department. The'll offer you a list of performance steps and
prices. Read the fine print.
Verizon in NY and NJ does a very good job for some of my clients.
YMMV.
If you put in a domain server you can enforce policy and remote
control and apply patches (very important) on any client machine, no
matter who sets it up.
You need central control of antivirus on all machines.
For the scale of you operation you should get XP Volume licenses for
from Microsoft XP and Office, and any oother package yuo use. Youi
save a little moiney up froms byt the lifetime cost savings are usage,
both in buying new retail licenses and in labor cost for machine
setup. In 2006 machines setup should be completely hands-off. Group
Policy Objects are your friend.
You are in a position to eith save yoiu company huge amounts of money,
or waste it. The former is best as a career path.
I think you need some hands-on advice.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.
- References:
- Large network question
- From: whytwelve13
- Re: Large network question
- From: Mark J
- Re: Large network question
- From: developers
- Re: Large network question
- From: whytwelve13
- Large network question
- Prev by Date: Re: Large network question
- Next by Date: Re: "Forcing" gigabit link operation
- Previous by thread: Re: Large network question
- Next by thread: Routers - Need your opinion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
