Server wireless or cable?

Hi all,

i'm planning to build an office with 60 computers and 2 servers (Linux,
MS Server 2003) using wireless technology.
I would like to connect also these servers to the network by wireless
card instead of normal cable? Do you think it is an idiot solution
because of performances and reliability?
What the best in this case, keep servers connected by cable?

Thanks all!

Juky

juky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> i'm planning to build an office with 60 computers and 2 servers (Linux,
> MS Server 2003) using wireless technology.
> I would like to connect also these servers to the network by wireless
> card instead of normal cable? Do you think it is an idiot solution
> because of performances and reliability?
> What the best in this case, keep servers connected by cable?
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Juky
>
That number of systems connected to a single wireless access point is
likely to give performance problems as they all fight to share the
available bandwidth, especially if any media streaming (ie: video) or
serious data transfers are to take place. A wired solution would be
better unless absolutely necessary - I guess the cost angle of a
wireless solution (ie:no infrastructure cabling to do) is the appeal?

A wireless solution for that number of PCs would involve multiple access
points.

L3K

Ok, so i want to use 802.11a technology, around 5-6 access points and
cabling the 2 server.My choice is for AP Linksys WRT55AT (is A+G), what
about this ? Do u also think using a small router would be better, in
case which one suggest ?

Thx.
Juky


Linker3000 wrote:
> juky wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > i'm planning to build an office with 60 computers and 2 servers (Linux,
> > MS Server 2003) using wireless technology.
> > I would like to connect also these servers to the network by wireless
> > card instead of normal cable? Do you think it is an idiot solution
> > because of performances and reliability?
> > What the best in this case, keep servers connected by cable?
> >
> > Thanks all!
> >
> > Juky
> >
> That number of systems connected to a single wireless access point is
> likely to give performance problems as they all fight to share the
> available bandwidth, especially if any media streaming (ie: video) or
> serious data transfers are to take place. A wired solution would be
> better unless absolutely necessary - I guess the cost angle of a
> wireless solution (ie:no infrastructure cabling to do) is the appeal?
>
> A wireless solution for that number of PCs would involve multiple access
> points.
>
> L3K

"juky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> i'm planning to build an office with 60 computers and 2 servers (Linux,
> MS Server 2003) using wireless technology.
> I would like to connect also these servers to the network by wireless
> card instead of normal cable? Do you think it is an idiot solution
> because of performances and reliability?
> What the best in this case, keep servers connected by cable?
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Juky

You might be better paying for professional advice and installation using
WIRES. You will regret using a wireless internet solution.


>

"Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:V8Wwf.37234$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "juky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i'm planning to build an office with 60 computers and 2 servers (Linux,
>> MS Server 2003) using wireless technology.
>> I would like to connect also these servers to the network by wireless
>> card instead of normal cable? Do you think it is an idiot solution
>> because of performances and reliability?
>> What the best in this case, keep servers connected by cable?
>>
>> Thanks all!
>>
>> Juky
>
> You might be better paying for professional advice and installation using
> WIRES. You will regret using a wireless internet solution.
>

I'd agree - wireless is handy for hotels and so on, but performance is at
best much slower than cables and at worst downright unreliable.
We have the odd customer using wireless and they have all sorts of problems
with database corruption as the link drops now and again and they are too
cheap to get SQL Server!

Thx guys....you all just confirmed my feeling about using wireless in
that case!!
The problem is the customer wants a wireless solution....so i have to
find the best compromise between technical issues (performances,
reliability, etc.) and customer requests. Not easy to reject the
project because we are pushing for wired. ;-)


Juky


JamesB wrote:
> "Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:V8Wwf.37234$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "juky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> i'm planning to build an office with 60 computers and 2 servers (Linux,
> >> MS Server 2003) using wireless technology.
> >> I would like to connect also these servers to the network by wireless
> >> card instead of normal cable? Do you think it is an idiot solution
> >> because of performances and reliability?
> >> What the best in this case, keep servers connected by cable?
> >>
> >> Thanks all!
> >>
> >> Juky
> >
> > You might be better paying for professional advice and installation using
> > WIRES. You will regret using a wireless internet solution.
> >
>
> I'd agree - wireless is handy for hotels and so on, but performance is at
> best much slower than cables and at worst downright unreliable.
> We have the odd customer using wireless and they have all sorts of problems
> with database corruption as the link drops now and again and they are too
> cheap to get SQL Server!

On 11 Jan 2006 09:08:46 -0800, "juky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Thx guys....you all just confirmed my feeling about using wireless in
>that case!!
>The problem is the customer wants a wireless solution....so i have to
>find the best compromise between technical issues (performances,
>reliability, etc.) and customer requests. Not easy to reject the
>project because we are pushing for wired. ;-)
>
>

True but the customer will be whinging and whining at you when his
'wanted' wireless system does not work properly. TELL HIM!!

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>
juky <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Thx guys....you all just confirmed my feeling about using wireless in
> that case!!
> The problem is the customer wants a wireless solution

Why? What are the perceived advantages as far as he's concerned?

> so i have to
> find the best compromise between technical issues (performances,
> reliability, etc.) and customer requests.

The customer should be presenting you with business requirements, not
technical implementation details.

> Not easy to reject the
> project because we are pushing for wired. ;-)
>

Why not? Who's supposed to be the ICT expert?