On Thursday 02 March 2006 11:46, Dana Harding wrote: > Good Day Everybody,
Hi. > I'm convinced that a QoS-based approach is the way to > ensure file transfers do not interrupt VoIP traffic. > (not to mention the fact that I don't want to have to > dig a ditch in the ground to run another cable parallel > to the existing link). I've always said (I work for an ISP), apart from your customer and upstream links, what other links does a network expect to saturate? My basis for this thought is that local, core, internal bandwidth is cheap to install, maintain and upgrade. Let's say your switches are "switching" Layer 2 frames like they should, are you already reaching 75% of the switch's switching capacity? Of course, the amount of bandwidth you can push through a single switch will depend on the vendor and model - but let's say you have a decent switch that can dos ome 80Mbps before it falls over, have you started hitting this already? Let's look at your cabling - Cat-5 is generally good enough to run 100Mbps (sometimes 1000Mbps). Then again, you could run use fibre to interconnect the switches over a 1Gbps port trunk. Either way, buying a switch that will do 10/100/1000Mbps per port including uplink ports, and support fibre uplink connectivity, is much better than trying to run QoS on a LAN. QoS has its own complications, but is really unnecessary on a well (read: over) engineered LAN; I think. Just get yourself small 2950T Cisco switches (they have 2x 1Gbps uplink ports), or a 3750 Cisco switch that has Gig-E support on all switch ports. Both are relatively inexpensive for the amount of bandwidth you'll achieve. Cheers, Mark.
pgpBxNQAf05wC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
