Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Slow Lan-- What will be the reason?

  1. #21
    Gray Haired Old Fart aeallison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Buffalo, Missouri USA
    Posts
    888
    Thank you zENGER I stand corrected. Again I am only limited by what I would do in a similar situation.
    I have a question; are you the bug, or the windshield?

  2. #22
    Originally posted here by SirDice
    aeallison: Reread the thread. Viruss has 600 clients in a 192.168.x.x Class B network. That's 192.168.0.0/16 or 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0. The tokenring network was just an example to indicate more users -> slower network.


    Viruss: As noted by others, I believe 600 nodes in 1 broadcast domain is way too much. You might be plagued by broadcast storms. Windows machines tend to broadcast a lot of crap.. Other things to check are the NetBios node types. This maybe a cause if you have a lot of broadcast traffic. Resolving DNS/WINS might be an issue too. But I highly recommend segmenting your network. It'll make life a whole lot easier...

    Other things to look for are speed/duplex mismatches between the switch and the NICs. We set everything. We've had our fair share of users complaining about slow connections when the NIC and the switchport where both set to auto/auto (speed/duplex). Turns out both will try another setting every now and then and then it'll screw up.
    SirDice,

    as I told early , I am using Dlink unmanaged switch where I can't telnet thse switches for any management task. (give me any idea to do it via any other source/method).

    One more question :- I am going to make four segments of existing network. what should I use as a gateway between these four segments ? i.e. I mean to say any Linux PC with five ethernet cards ( this may be funny & i don't know wheter it will work or not) or any Layer 3 switch is required?
    Be Cool ..


  3. #23
    Just Another Geek
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,401
    You could do it with a Linux PC. But I recommend investing in a couple of good switches. If you can replace the unmanaged switches with managed ones.

    Are all those 600 clients in one building? What are the distances? Are the servers in one (server) room?

    I would take a 100Mbit switch for the servers. Use 10/100Mbit switches for your clients. Connect all the switches with 1000Mbit (as a backbone). Use managed L3 switches. I believe the price difference between L2 and L3 switches isn't that much these days.

    If distance permits you may want to look at a Catalist 4/5/6000 series (Cisco) or similar. With that you can easily segment your network using VLANs. You can also ditch all your other switches (if distance isn't a problem).
    Oliver's Law:
    Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

  4. #24
    Originally posted here by SirDice
    You could do it with a Linux PC. But I recommend investing in a couple of good switches. If you can replace the unmanaged switches with managed ones.

    Are all those 600 clients in one building? What are the distances? Are the servers in one (server) room?

    I would take a 100Mbit switch for the servers. Use 10/100Mbit switches for your clients. Connect all the switches with 1000Mbit (as a backbone). Use managed L3 switches. I believe the price difference between L2 and L3 switches isn't that much these days.

    If distance permits you may want to look at a Catalist 4/5/6000 series (Cisco) or similar. With that you can easily segment your network using VLANs. You can also ditch all your other switches (if distance isn't a problem).
    thanks for the reply.

    actually all these 600 PCs are not in one building. The distance betwwen switch 1 to switch 4 is more than 200 meter. So i can not convert the network in star topology. OS of these PCs are mixed type i.e. Win 98, win 2k, win xp, linux.
    Basically we have three servers. Web server, DNS server, proxy server.
    Be Cool ..


  5. #25
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    actually all these 600 PCs are not in one building. The distance betwwen switch 1 to switch 4 is more than 200 meter. So i can not convert the network in star topology. OS of these PCs are mixed type i.e. Win 98, win 2k, win xp, linux.


    "And may The Lord have mercy on your soul"


  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    469
    You can still convert them to multiple star topoologies linked with fibre.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,199
    I agree with the above, create a smaller star topology in each building. then link those networks together. This is good for several reasons. 1) you can monitor each are seperatly 2) you will see a huge speed increase becasue there iwll be far less traffic on each segment. 3) the new topology alone is just faster. 4) when something breaks it will be easier to track down.

    What I would do is create seperate subnets for each building. have a managed switch on each floor of every building and have all that leading back to one high end router/switch.
    Everyone is going to die, I am just as good of a reason as any.

    http://think-smarter.blogspot.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •