Company network slowdown

Question about typical company network. We are looking at going gigabit mainly
because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so. But... some
of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really the fault.
Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network and some not so
speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire network? We have B /
G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag down overall speed of the
network? We have hubs / switches that feed other hubs / switches. How bad a
practice is that?
There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot spots.
Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't care about
lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
Any suggestions?

DanR wrote:

> Question about typical company network. We are looking at going gigabit mainly
> because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so. But... some
> of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really the fault.
> Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network and some not so
> speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire network? We have B /
> G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag down overall speed of the
> network? We have hubs / switches that feed other hubs / switches. How bad a
> practice is that?
> There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot spots.
> Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't care about
> lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
> Any suggestions?
>
>
Have you run a sniffer over the network to determine where the
consumption and waste is ?

You must run a network traffic analysis prog to see where the bottlenecks
are and how the bandwidth is being used/shared.

Consider putting high bandwidth 'power' users on their own network if
possible... give them a fibre spine if required.

Someone should be managing your network - reliabilty, usability and security
will be compromised if you let benign (?) anarchy rule ;-)

Have fun

Guy


"DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QVoUe.3268$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> Question about typical company network. We are looking at going gigabit
> mainly
> because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so. But...
> some
> of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really the
> fault.
> Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network and some
> not so
> speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire network? We
> have B /
> G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag down overall speed of
> the
> network? We have hubs / switches that feed other hubs / switches. How bad
> a
> practice is that?
> There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot
> spots.
> Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't care
> about
> lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
> Any suggestions?
>
>

"DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:QVoUe.3268$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> Question about typical company network. We are looking at going gigabit
mainly
> because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so. But...
some
> of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really the
fault.
> Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network and some
not so
> speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire network? We
have B /
> G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag down overall speed of
the
> network? We have hubs / switches that feed other hubs / switches. How bad
a
> practice is that?
> There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot
spots.
> Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't care
about
> lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
> Any suggestions?
>
If you are running from the server through one switch and using one output
to feed another switch at 100 Mb, then taking the outputs of the second
switch to feed a number of workstations, then all those workstations must
share the single 100Mb feed from the first switch. Not good practice for
maintaining good throughput and response.

Just watching the "blinking lights" on the switches can give you some idea
of loading and in what directions the load is coming from.

Either you need to redistribute the workstation load more evenly or better,
take the network to gigabit so that the data moves a bit faster. Also be on
the lookout for a bad or "garbaging" NIC. Some varieties can soft fail
slowly and really start dragging a network down. Using managed switches
rather than unmanaged and setting them up properly usually makes a
significant difference.

You may also wish to look at adding a second (and third or fourth) ethernet
port on your server and feeding a switch directly rather than using a point
of an existing earlier switch. Four ethernet ports on the server, each
feeding a single 16 port switch and then directly to the clients will share
out the load significantly but be absolutely sure you use good NICs such as
the genuine Intel Pro series rather than many of the cheap aftermarket types
that generally cannot stand very high consistent traffic error free.

Remember also the cascading guidelines for switches, 10Mb - 3 cascaded,
100Mb - 2 cascaded, gigabit - no cascading.

Peter

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:29:52 GMT, "DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Question about typical company network.

Is "typical" a good reason not to itemize any of the hardware or
operating systems involved?

>We are looking at going gigabit mainly
>because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so.

Gigabit is great for taking the load off servers. For example, if
someone is doing regular backups or huge file transfers, running that
traffic through a single 100baseTX port on a server will cause traffic
constipation at the server. You would probably be better off
installing a 2nd ethernet card in the server, but gigabit will help.

However, once the traffic hits the ethernet switch, the only place it
goes is to the destination machine. Other users, using other ports,
such as to/from your T1 internet connection, will not be affected by
the heavy traffic in the slightest. Therefore, based on your limited
description of the topology, I doubt that gigabit is going to do
anything useful.

>But... some
>of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really the fault.

A T1 (DS1) is 1.544Mbits/sec. You'll get about 1.3Mbits/sec thruput
in both directions. Have you benchmarked this connection? I suggest:
http://nitro.ucsc.edu
which may disclose some setup and buffer issues. The CSU/DSU for the
T1 probably has a 10/100Mbit/sec ethernet port. No sense in making
that gigabit as you only have 1.5Mbits/sec to move through it. The T1
speed is the limiting factor.

Please note that a T1 is no better than a common DSL connection except
that it has far superior outgoing bandwidth. A 3 or 6Mbit/sec DSL
line, or 6Mbit/sec cable modem, will outperform a T1 for incoming
connections. If the T1 is clogged with junk, then perhaps some QoS
will suffice to delay a bandwidth upgrade.

>Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network and some not so
>speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire network?

With switches instead of hubs on a wired network, generally no. I can
create some kind of science fiction situation where a slow machine
will cause problems, but the ability of the switch to isolate traffic
generally prevents interaction. However, if there is a common
bottleneck for all the machines, such as the T1, then there will
certainly be problems.

>We have B /
>G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag down overall speed of the
>network?

Generally no, but it's possible. What wireless does is create common
network (air) path for all the wireless users. You no longer have the
benefits of separate switched paths as in a wired ethernet switch.
Only one radio may transmit in a given air space. The result is
consider mutual interaction and interference among wireless users.

>We have hubs / switches that feed other hubs / switches. How bad a
>practice is that?

It sucks. See the 5-4-3 rule for hubs.
http://fcit.usf.edu/network/chap5/chap5.htm
Note that a hub is a repeater and that many texts use the terms
interchangeably. Basically, it says not to put more than 3 hubs in
series. I've had so much trouble with spaghetti LAN's using hubs that
I replace them with switches as soon as I find them. That includes
10/100 hubs which are actually worse than single speed hubs.

Ideal is a central stackable and SNMP managed switch in a star
topology. That never happens as "workgroups" tend to add switches
where clusters of ethernet devices come together. As long as they use
switches, I don't have much of a problem. I make sure that the
collision domains do not become excessive and track the end to end
wire lengths. Dig out your drafting pad or Visio network topology
scribbler, and make a drawing of your network. It's impossible to
troubleshoot network constipation problems without a road map.

>There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot spots.

That's not a huge system. However, there are plenty of places where
things can break.

>Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't care about
>lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?

Leave it alone. The only thing a common SSID gives you is the ability
to roam around. Having different SSID's gives the user the ability to
chose which access point they want to use. Using a common SSID leaves
it to the flaky driver software, which never seems to get it right.

>Any suggestions?

Nope. Do you expect a mechanic to fix your car without telling him
the make and model? Do you go to a doctor and not expound on where it
hurts or how much? So, you get only general advice and sympathy.

1. Get some bandwidth and traffic monitoring going. Your CSU/DSU and
router probably support SNMP. I suggest MRTG or RRDTool.
http://www.mrtg.org
http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/
You can easily tell if your T1 is constipated. If so, then optimize,
add QoS, or add more bandwidth. You may have bottlenecks or high
error rates elsewhere.

2. Replace the hubs and dual speed hubs with switches. Don't bother
with gigabit unless you're bottlenecked at the server(s).

3. Do some sniffing and see what *TYPE* of traffic is causing
problems. I suggest Ethereal:
http://www.ethereal.com
This is tricky with a switch so be prepared to do some hardware
juggling or managed switch configuration for a monitor port. Be
prepared to "discover" virus, worm, and streaming traffic. One
Bittorrent filesharing user will bring your network to a stop.

4. Draw a network map so you can ask for help. This is not a trivial
exercise. It usually takes me about a week to do properly on a large
and complex systems. Just finding all the devices, servers, and
bootleg attachments are a major challenge. That includes noting MAC
and IP addresses for identification.

5. Get help from someone experienced in network analysis and
troubleshooting.





--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:29:52 GMT, "DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Question about typical company network.
>
> Is "typical" a good reason not to itemize any of the hardware or
> operating systems involved?
>
>> We are looking at going gigabit mainly
>> because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so.
>
> Gigabit is great for taking the load off servers. For example, if
> someone is doing regular backups or huge file transfers, running that
> traffic through a single 100baseTX port on a server will cause traffic
> constipation at the server. You would probably be better off
> installing a 2nd ethernet card in the server, but gigabit will help.
>
> However, once the traffic hits the ethernet switch, the only place it
> goes is to the destination machine. Other users, using other ports,
> such as to/from your T1 internet connection, will not be affected by
> the heavy traffic in the slightest. Therefore, based on your limited
> description of the topology, I doubt that gigabit is going to do
> anything useful.
>
>> But... some
>> of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really the fault.
>
> A T1 (DS1) is 1.544Mbits/sec. You'll get about 1.3Mbits/sec thruput
> in both directions. Have you benchmarked this connection? I suggest:
> http://nitro.ucsc.edu
> which may disclose some setup and buffer issues. The CSU/DSU for the
> T1 probably has a 10/100Mbit/sec ethernet port. No sense in making
> that gigabit as you only have 1.5Mbits/sec to move through it. The T1
> speed is the limiting factor.
>
> Please note that a T1 is no better than a common DSL connection except
> that it has far superior outgoing bandwidth. A 3 or 6Mbit/sec DSL
> line, or 6Mbit/sec cable modem, will outperform a T1 for incoming
> connections. If the T1 is clogged with junk, then perhaps some QoS
> will suffice to delay a bandwidth upgrade.
>
>> Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network and some
>> not so speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire network?
>
> With switches instead of hubs on a wired network, generally no. I can
> create some kind of science fiction situation where a slow machine
> will cause problems, but the ability of the switch to isolate traffic
> generally prevents interaction. However, if there is a common
> bottleneck for all the machines, such as the T1, then there will
> certainly be problems.
>
>> We have B /
>> G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag down overall speed of
>> the network?
>
> Generally no, but it's possible. What wireless does is create common
> network (air) path for all the wireless users. You no longer have the
> benefits of separate switched paths as in a wired ethernet switch.
> Only one radio may transmit in a given air space. The result is
> consider mutual interaction and interference among wireless users.
>
>> We have hubs / switches that feed other hubs / switches. How bad a
>> practice is that?
>
> It sucks. See the 5-4-3 rule for hubs.
> http://fcit.usf.edu/network/chap5/chap5.htm
> Note that a hub is a repeater and that many texts use the terms
> interchangeably. Basically, it says not to put more than 3 hubs in
> series. I've had so much trouble with spaghetti LAN's using hubs that
> I replace them with switches as soon as I find them. That includes
> 10/100 hubs which are actually worse than single speed hubs.
>
> Ideal is a central stackable and SNMP managed switch in a star
> topology. That never happens as "workgroups" tend to add switches
> where clusters of ethernet devices come together. As long as they use
> switches, I don't have much of a problem. I make sure that the
> collision domains do not become excessive and track the end to end
> wire lengths. Dig out your drafting pad or Visio network topology
> scribbler, and make a drawing of your network. It's impossible to
> troubleshoot network constipation problems without a road map.
>
>> There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot
>> spots.
>
> That's not a huge system. However, there are plenty of places where
> things can break.
>
>> Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't care
>> about lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
>
> Leave it alone. The only thing a common SSID gives you is the ability
> to roam around. Having different SSID's gives the user the ability to
> chose which access point they want to use. Using a common SSID leaves
> it to the flaky driver software, which never seems to get it right.
>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Nope. Do you expect a mechanic to fix your car without telling him
> the make and model? Do you go to a doctor and not expound on where it
> hurts or how much? So, you get only general advice and sympathy.
>
> 1. Get some bandwidth and traffic monitoring going. Your CSU/DSU and
> router probably support SNMP. I suggest MRTG or RRDTool.
> http://www.mrtg.org
> http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/
> You can easily tell if your T1 is constipated. If so, then optimize,
> add QoS, or add more bandwidth. You may have bottlenecks or high
> error rates elsewhere.
>
> 2. Replace the hubs and dual speed hubs with switches. Don't bother
> with gigabit unless you're bottlenecked at the server(s).
>
> 3. Do some sniffing and see what *TYPE* of traffic is causing
> problems. I suggest Ethereal:
> http://www.ethereal.com
> This is tricky with a switch so be prepared to do some hardware
> juggling or managed switch configuration for a monitor port. Be
> prepared to "discover" virus, worm, and streaming traffic. One
> Bittorrent filesharing user will bring your network to a stop.
>
> 4. Draw a network map so you can ask for help. This is not a trivial
> exercise. It usually takes me about a week to do properly on a large
> and complex systems. Just finding all the devices, servers, and
> bootleg attachments are a major challenge. That includes noting MAC
> and IP addresses for identification.
>
> 5. Get help from someone experienced in network analysis and
> troubleshooting.

Yes, I should have provided more information about our network hardware. Problem
is I don't really know. We are a production company with 6 Avid sweets, 2 audio
sweets, one online editing room and an interactive department. We don't have any
IT people per se... but have designated one of our coders to be responsible for
the network. He's a sharp guy and seems to know his network jargon. And he is
new on the job having taken over the network from someone who left. Because I'm
fairly handy with computers in general I'm helping the boss think through our
move to giga-bit and the coincidental network / Internet slowdown we have been
experiencing. The main reason to go giga-bit is to move very large files around
on the network. (video files in the giga-Bytes) And because of the Internet
slowdown of late we are talking and wondering if that will improve Internet
throughput. Obviously it will be a fairly expensive endeavor to run all new
cable throughout the building and get new NICs. So we're also thinking about
only doing new giga-drops at some work stations and not the entire network. All
new drops will be home runs and if we do the entire building that means all home
runs. But there's a but and that is that we are considering fiber to the upper
floor because of long runs.
So that is a bit of background and I'm just trying to learn what I can so I can
ask intelligent questions and better understand what the heck is going on. I'm
basically a home network guy and that is the extent of my network hardware
knowledge.
I appreciate the help so far provided. Thank you all.
Jeff... when you say "A T1 (DS1) is 1.544Mbits/sec. You'll get about
1.3Mbits/sec thruput in both directions." Does that mean that just one
workstation at a time will see that throughput? If 10 computers / workstations
are at the same time doing a Microsoft update for example... are they sharing
that 1.3Mbit bandwidth? Are they each then downloading at 130Kb. Does it work
that way? Also curious about one of our people who constantly listens to
Internet radio streams. Any harm there?

Pierre wrote:
> "DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:QVoUe.3268$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>> Question about typical company network. We are looking at going gigabit
>> mainly because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or so.
>> But... some of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is really
>> the fault. Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the network
>> and some not so speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the entire
>> network? We have B / G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they drag
>> down overall speed of the network? We have hubs / switches that feed other
>> hubs / switches. How bad a practice is that?
>> There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi hot
>> spots. Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We don't
>> care about lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
>> Any suggestions?
>>
> If you are running from the server through one switch and using one output
> to feed another switch at 100 Mb, then taking the outputs of the second
> switch to feed a number of workstations, then all those workstations must
> share the single 100Mb feed from the first switch. Not good practice for
> maintaining good throughput and response.
>
> Just watching the "blinking lights" on the switches can give you some idea
> of loading and in what directions the load is coming from.
>
> Either you need to redistribute the workstation load more evenly or better,
> take the network to gigabit so that the data moves a bit faster. Also be on
> the lookout for a bad or "garbaging" NIC. Some varieties can soft fail

What are the symptoms of a bad or "garbaging" NIC? Would it be constant traffic
even when the user is not doing anything network related? Would "watching the
"blinking lights" help find one of these NICs? Would a managed switch make a
"garbaging" NIC a non issue?

> slowly and really start dragging a network down. Using managed switches
> rather than unmanaged and setting them up properly usually makes a
> significant difference.
>
> You may also wish to look at adding a second (and third or fourth) ethernet
> port on your server and feeding a switch directly rather than using a point
> of an existing earlier switch. Four ethernet ports on the server, each
> feeding a single 16 port switch and then directly to the clients will share
> out the load significantly but be absolutely sure you use good NICs such as
> the genuine Intel Pro series rather than many of the cheap aftermarket types
> that generally cannot stand very high consistent traffic error free.
>
> Remember also the cascading guidelines for switches, 10Mb - 3 cascaded,
> 100Mb - 2 cascaded, gigabit - no cascading.
>
> Peter

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:08:32 GMT, "DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yes, I should have provided more information about our network hardware. Problem
>is I don't really know.

Fine. However you should have some clue who's got performance
problems.

>We are a production company with 6 Avid sweets, 2 audio
>sweets, one online editing room and an interactive department.

That's Suite's, not sweets.

>We don't have any
>IT people per se... but have designated one of our coders to be responsible for
>the network.

I can't tell for sure but if you have 50 boxes, you really should get
someone qualified to do the troubleshooting. It's easy enough to plan
and setup a new network. It's requires experience to troubleshoot an
existing network.

>He's a sharp guy and seems to know his network jargon. And he is
>new on the job having taken over the network from someone who left. Because I'm
>fairly handy with computers in general

Well, ok.

>I'm helping the boss think through our
>move to giga-bit and the coincidental network / Internet slowdown we have been
>experiencing.

Ok, so it's an *INTERNET* slowdown, not a server to client or render
farm slowdown. That's not going to change at all by going to gigabit.
You're bottlenecked at 1.5Mbits/sec at the T1 and that's your limit.
Do the traffic monitoring to see what and how much is moving in and
out of the T1. Don't be surprised if you see worms, file sharing, and
garbage.

>The main reason to go giga-bit is to move very large files around
>on the network. (video files in the giga-Bytes) And because of the Internet
>slowdown of late we are talking and wondering if that will improve Internet
>throughput.

That's very different from an *INTERNET* slowdown. Most render farms
are interconnected with gigabit ethernet. The big boxes have multiple
gigabit cards to distribute the load. I got to play with one RAID
server with 4 cards and a load balancer. Yeah, for in house traffic,
gigabit is great.

However, you still have to know if you're making an improvement. For
that you need numbers, measurements, calculations, and pretty graphs
to impress the boss. I suggest MRTG for traffic monitoring.

>Obviously it will be a fairly expensive endeavor to run all new
>cable throughout the building and get new NICs.

Baloney. CAT5e will do gigabit just fine. You don't really need
CAT6. Keep the cable lengths down to less than 300ft. Avoid long
flexible ethernet CAT5 jumpers. Borrow a cable certifier and test
your wiring. New gigabit NIC's are cheap. Netgear GA311 is about
$20. I recently upgraded a law office with gigabit everything. It
was a barely noticeable improvement. You only notice an improvement
if your existing 100baseTX system is saturated. Do the measurements
and you'll know for sure. If lazy, use Windoze XP Perfmon to check
client network utilization.

>So we're also thinking about
>only doing new giga-drops at some work stations and not the entire network.

Fine. Draw the topology map as I suggested and see how many boxes in
between the gigabit NIC's need to be upgraded.

>All
>new drops will be home runs and if we do the entire building that means all home
>runs.

Home runs to what? I smell a big building with cable lengths more
than 300ft which will require some intermediate boxes. Home runs
aren't always best.

>But there's a but and that is that we are considering fiber to the upper
>floor because of long runs.

How long? If you don't know, guess.

>So that is a bit of background and I'm just trying to learn what I can so I can
>ask intelligent questions and better understand what the heck is going on.

Well, ok. I think I've given you a good start on the buzzwords. So
far, you've made the decision to spend some money, considerable time,
and a bit of guesswork, in order to upgrade a network that you don't
have a clue where it's running slow, why it's running slow, or whether
you have a traffic problem. Also, this has nothing to do with
wireless so you're asking in the wrong newsgroup. To insure that
you'll get no useful answers, you've supplied not one single name,
number, model number, distance, or accurate description.

>I'm
>basically a home network guy and that is the extent of my network hardware
>knowledge.

Well, you're learning. Business LAN's are very similar except that
reliability is a much bigger issue than performance or features. Your
real task will be to fix whatever problem you can't seem to describe
accurately, and do it without breaking anything else or having 50
irate graphic artists screaming at you. That's quite different from
home networking.

>I appreciate the help so far provided. Thank you all.
>Jeff... when you say "A T1 (DS1) is 1.544Mbits/sec. You'll get about
>1.3Mbits/sec thruput in both directions." Does that mean that just one
>workstation at a time will see that throughput?

No. The bandwidth is distributed roughly equally among the
workstations.

>If 10 computers / workstations
>are at the same time doing a Microsoft update for example... are they sharing
>that 1.3Mbit bandwidth?

Yes. In theory, each workstation will get 1/10th the incoming
bandwidth. MS Update is a bad example because of the way they do
bandwidth limiting, but that's a diversion and not part of this
discussion.

>Are they each then downloading at 130Kb. Does it work
>that way?

Yes.

>Also curious about one of our people who constantly listens to
>Internet radio streams. Any harm there?

No. I do that in the office. Screaming audio is from 24Kbits/sec to
about 128Kbits/sec. Compared to your 1500Kbit/sec, the screaming
audio listener only eats about 8% of your incoming bandwidth.
However, if you're saturating the T1 with other traffic (do the
sniffing), then that last 8% might be fatal.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:09:00 +1000, "Pierre" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Jeff has it right again except for one part. Gigabit NICs are cheap and you
>get what you pay for. having been intimately associated with a similar type
>of installation, we ended up throwing out 23 Netgear GA311 NICs and a
>variety of other breeds. The majority of them just cannot reliably stand
>intense high volume traffic as occasioned by hundred megabyte file transfers
>running 24/7. They randomly and intermittently buckle resulting in a few
>more retries which takes precious bandwidth. Commercial installations
>usually run at sub 5 or 10% network utilisation. Graphics and imaging sites
>often run at 80%+ utilisation for minutes on end.
>
>After a lot of experimentation and testing of various NICs, we replaced all
>the NICs on the network with genuine Intel Pro series NICs which were a bit
>dearer and have never had a problem in the three years since and it flies.
>And no, I am an independent contractor with no interest or shares in Intel!
>
>Peter

Oops. I just mean't the GA311 as an example of a cheap gigabit NIC.
I have to confess that I don't have experience with the GA311 NIC
under heavy continuous load. I guess I'll avoid the GA311 as the
Intel card is only about $30 each.
| http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...275962&CatId=0
My only point was that a gigabit conversion is no longer very
expensive at the client end.

Looking at Gigabit switches, the prices seem to hover around $10-$20
per port for unmanaged and $25 to $40 per port for managed switches.
I would go with the managed switch as I'm a big fan of SNMP monitoring
and management. Knowing what's happening and being able to turn
things on and off remotely is worth the extra dollars.
| http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?Nav=|c:201|c:596|
94 gigabit switches to chose from, some of which are fairly cheap.

Incidentally, you're largely proving my point, that gigabit is only
effective when the network segment is heavily loaded. With light
loads, I can do quite well with 100baseTX-FDX.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Hi Dan,

A garbaging NIC can often be found by watching the lights. Network software
analysis tools very rarely find it as the data it is sending is invariably a
load of rubbish and may not even be valid bytes. All it seems to do is use
bandwidth. The user may even be otherwise totally inactive but the NIC keeps
chattering. A final usual proof is to unplug the ethernet cable at the
suspect machine and see if there is an improvement.

Putting in a managed switch is not the way to fix that problem. You have to
find the bad NIC and replace it. It is a bit like using a bucket to drain a
flooded area when in fact the drain should be unblocked!

As others have said, a good audit and mapping of the complete network is
mandatory if you are going to approach the issues in any sort of logical
manner. The scatter gun approach generally leads to more confusion.

With a good map of your network, you can isolate sections logically and see
if the isolated section was that hogging the network and then break that
section into smaller sections until the culprit is found. There could well
be other issues which have affected the network loading and performance too
such as a new application installed, the server databases not responding
quickly enough because of server performance issues and so on. Again. draw
up in detail what the network has and step through it first.

As an example, a client of mine runs some 50-60 workstations to two separate
servers on a single network. The primary server is also running a moderately
heavy SQL database and file storage of some 2 terabytes of image files
averaging 1.5 Mb each. In any one minute period, it is usual to have some 20
workstations up and down some 10-15 image files each, apart from referencing
the SQL database and a medium accounting job. It used to run at 100 Mb with
unmanaged switches on two segments and was a bit slow. Once a garbaging NIC
dropped performance by some 25% overall. The same system is now upgraded
with two managed switches and gigabit, it flies!
Peter
"DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:RHJUe.2760$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>
>
> Pierre wrote:
> > "DanR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:QVoUe.3268$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> >> Question about typical company network. We are looking at going gigabit
> >> mainly because of a perceived network slowdown in the past 6 months or
so.
> >> But... some of use are not sure that the 100 Mb T1 current network is
really
> >> the fault. Question is: We have some really speedy computers on the
network
> >> and some not so speedy. Can slow clock speed computers drag down the
entire
> >> network? We have B / G Wi-Fi on both sides of the firewall. Can they
drag
> >> down overall speed of the network? We have hubs / switches that feed
other
> >> hubs / switches. How bad a practice is that?
> >> There are about 50 wired drops around the building and around 8 wi-fi
hot
> >> spots. Previous IT guy set the wi-fi up with all different SSIDs. We
don't
> >> care about lap top roaming so maybe that's not a big deal. Or not?
> >> Any suggestions?
> >>
> > If you are running from the server through one switch and using one
output
> > to feed another switch at 100 Mb, then taking the outputs of the second
> > switch to feed a number of workstations, then all those workstations
must
> > share the single 100Mb feed from the first switch. Not good practice for
> > maintaining good throughput and response.
> >
> > Just watching the "blinking lights" on the switches can give you some
idea
> > of loading and in what directions the load is coming from.
> >
> > Either you need to redistribute the workstation load more evenly or
better,
> > take the network to gigabit so that the data moves a bit faster. Also be
on
> > the lookout for a bad or "garbaging" NIC. Some varieties can soft fail
>
> What are the symptoms of a bad or "garbaging" NIC? Would it be constant
traffic
> even when the user is not doing anything network related? Would "watching
the
> "blinking lights" help find one of these NICs? Would a managed switch make
a
> "garbaging" NIC a non issue?
>
> > slowly and really start dragging a network down. Using managed switches
> > rather than unmanaged and setting them up properly usually makes a
> > significant difference.
> >
> > You may also wish to look at adding a second (and third or fourth)
ethernet
> > port on your server and feeding a switch directly rather than using a
point
> > of an existing earlier switch. Four ethernet ports on the server, each
> > feeding a single 16 port switch and then directly to the clients will
share
> > out the load significantly but be absolutely sure you use good NICs such
as
> > the genuine Intel Pro series rather than many of the cheap aftermarket
types
> > that generally cannot stand very high consistent traffic error free.
> >
> > Remember also the cascading guidelines for switches, 10Mb - 3 cascaded,
> > 100Mb - 2 cascaded, gigabit - no cascading.
> >
> > Peter
>
>