<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Use Gigabit Ethernet to eliminate LAN bottlenecks ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-18T16:46:47-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-473424]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&gt;Also, when you look at the statistics of data comm. on any network with a protocol analyzer (Sniffer, Etherpeek, Internet Advisor, etc.) you'll find that most workstation traffic is bursty in pattern and you don't really need gigabit to the desktop. Absolutely. In fact, Ethernet (esp half duplex) DEPENDS on the statistical likelyhood that the wire is only really really busy a small fraction of the time. Your conclusion that gigabit to the desktop won't help as much follows logically. Better to link the switches over gigabit, and the most used servers as well. &gt;If you have power users (like large DBA's), put them on thier own dedicated 100 Mbps switch port (and make sure it's FORCED to 100, not 10/100 autoselectYa. Niether Autonegotiate nor autosense are STANDARDS BASED processes and both processes fail as often as they suceed, at least in my experience.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-473424]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[A50MHzHam]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:35:34 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Performance improved-reply]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-473420]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes, everyone using a 48-port 100mb switch gets a theoretical 1/48th of the bandwidth, but Ethernet WORKS because unicast traffic tends to be asynchronus- When user A is saving a huge CAD file and using a lot of bandwidth, odds are good that users Band C are staring at an e-mail or word processing doc and not using any. So, especially in switched environments, each user of a 100mb switch gets something a little closer to 100mb to himself. Now consider the modern data center- several or dozens of servers, hundreds or more users. Odds are good that users A thru M are using server 1, while dozens of others are using servers 2, 8, 10, and 43. In this situation, where use of bandwidth is concentrated on a small number (but more than one) of servers, it make sense to use a gig switch with gig links to all medium and highly used servers, gig links to the wiring closets, and from there, 100mb FD links to the workstations. IMHO, YMMV, Tom]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-473420]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[A50MHzHam]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:31:20 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Total gig solution unrealistic!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-473414]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't see anyone building end-to-end gigabit networks any time soon! Geez, do they think most companies have that kind of $$$ around? Here's a more realistic scenario: Get the biggest baddest gigabit switch you can afford for your MDF (main NOC). Make sure the switch has a fast enough backplane and fast enough thruput to service all those gig ports. Give your busiest servers gig links to the BUS (big ugly switch) and gradually upgrade all servers to gigbit links.  Make sure all your IDF (closet or worksgroup) switches can 1. support the thruput it takes to handle a bunch of 100mb and a smaller number of gig links and 2. has slots or module port to add gigabit interfaces to. Run your IDF switches at 10/100mb, but change over the uplinks to them to gigabit over the next year. Your high demand workstations can have 100mb full duplex connections, but save bandwidth for lower demand (e-mail and word processing) machines and run them at 10mb full duplex if possible. Don't tell people what speed their workstation is- I defy the average user to determine for sure if their workstation is 10 or 100mb. Unless they are a heavy CAD or engineering user or similar. You could even start upgrading some workstations to gigabit, but that's hideously expensive. Make sure you look down the road a little when picking your switches.HTH, Tom]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-473414]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[A50MHzHam]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:24:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Dependencies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-347415]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What you've described about routing is the basic problem of dependencies. Your data throughput is only as good as your slowest link.Since most companies max out a routed WAN connection at T-1 speed, the best throughput you'll ever get is 1.5 Mbps. It doesn't make sense to use a high speed connection for a WAN link.Also, when you look at the statistics of data comm. on any network with a protocol analyzer (Sniffer, Etherpeek, Internet Advisor, etc.) you'll find that most workstation traffic is bursty in pattern and you don't really need gigabit to the desktop.If you have power users (like large DBA's), put them on thier own dedicated 100 Mbps switch port (and make sure it's FORCED to 100, not 10/100 autoselect).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-347415]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jaymal1@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:13:33 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Net to Net, not PC to PC]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-344464]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[1000BaseT is great for network to network connectivity, but probably not much good for PC to PC connectivity.The reason is that desktop machines will be bottlenecked by their bus, hard drive and other performance issues.  I have to say, though, that I'd rather be constrained by my CPU speed or other local issue, than by my network speed.In order to take advantage of the speed of gigabit, you're best bet is to use it in connecting one LAN (10 to 1000 workstations) to another.  The combined traffic MIGHT make use of the entire bandwith, but an individual server almost never will.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-344464]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Bucky Kaufman (MCSD)]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:23:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thanks]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-343457]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Your answer was just what I needed to hear.  It is always great to have someone else confirm that I was thinking correctly.Mike]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-343457]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mikewbc]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:20:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Performanced will be improved]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-342856]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Remember, switches have dedicated throughput between collision domains, which are generally between only 2 ports.  Which means, if you have a 48 port 100Mbit switch, you can have 2400Mbits of data being transmitted at one time.  The problem being, generally most workstations want to only communicate with the router or a server thus creating a bottleneck at these locations, bringing the actual throughput to 100Mbit divided by how may stations are trying to communicate with it (roughly 100Mbit/46workstations=2.1Mbit if all workstations are trying to communicate with 1 server).  Solutions: Have the server's NIC and the router's NIC upgraded to 1000Mbit.  This solution will still have a bottle neck at the server/router, but it is more manageable (roughly 1000Mbit/46 workstations=21Mbit).  And hence, the need for more bandwidth is still desired to increase the router/server link up to 10Gbit (10Gbit/46 workstations=210Mbit, which would move the bottleneck back to the workstation's link, 100Mbit).  I hope this is what you were asking,Alan the Tech]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-342856]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AlanTheTech]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:44:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Server and Switches only?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-342628]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Can you get improved performance if you have 1000 cards in your servers and a 100/1000 switch even if all your workstations are still 100, or will everything just switch down to 100?  I'm getting ready to purchase new switch and server and this might be the way to go if it there is a performance increase.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-56879-342628]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mikewbc]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2001 04:58:16 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

