You guys must be integrators! She has a 5500 already, which although somewhat dated,
should be able to provide enough horsepower to route to 600 users in 5 or 6 subnets
surely.
I highly expect her issue is not lack of hardware related. I expect there is a
misconfiguration or faulty cabling at some point along the line. Really, this type of
troubleshooting is hard to do offline however :)
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/11/2000 at 3:25 PM Brian W. wrote:
>I couldn't agree more, a multiport switch connected to the router, then
>another switch for each area of worksations is the way I would go.
>
> Bri
>
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Donald B Johnson Jr wrote:
>
>> Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
>> Supernetting five subnets and putting 500 stations on one segement will
>> cripple your network.
>> Duck
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:13 PM
>> Subject: Why not supernetting?
>>
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I am looking for advice on a LAN performance issue. i
>> > am running primarily NT4 and win2K boxes on a 100Mbit
>> > UTP Ethernet LAN.
>> >
>> > my servers are on static IPs on one subnet while my
>> > clients pick up DHCP addresses (assigned out of my
>> > control) in any one of half a dozen other subnets.
>> > file transfer and printing performance between client
>> > and server is averaging 1Mbit/sec when computers are
>> > in different subnets. switch the same two computers to
>> > static IPs in the same subnet and throughput jumps to
>> > a respectable 30-70Mbit/sec. i need to keep the
>> > clients on DHCP as i don't have enough static IPs to
>> > go around for the subnet the servers are in.
>> >
>> > all clients and servers are attached to one of 5
>> > Allied Telesyn 8126XL 24-port managed switches. all 5
>> > of these "edge" switches connect to another switch of
>> > the same model with a 100Mbit multi-mode (1300
>> > nanometer) fiber uplink which connects to a Cisco
>> > Catalyst 5500 for our routing needs.
>> >
>> > When the clients are on different subnets the file
>> > transfers appear to take a long trip through the
>> > router with a huge performance penalty (1Mbit/sec).
>> > when the client and server are on the same subnet the
>> > packets do NOT appear to be routed (perhaps they are
>> > handled using ARP?) and the performance is very good.
>> > ping response times on both switches and routers is
>> > under 20ms. This is where I believe supernetting could
>> > be a solution to this slowness, because I think
>> > supernetting allows me to put all stations in the same
>> > subnet, witch avoids routing needs.
>> >
>> > I got some responses to my previous post from people
>> > saying that supernetting would slow down the speed
>> > because there would be too many stations in big
>> > broadcast domain, which contradicts what I am willing
>> > to do.
>> >
>> > Am i missing some key concepts here that might improve
>> > my understanding of this tragic performance?
>> >
>> >
>> > any help would be greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> > take care,
>> >
>> > jw
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
>> > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>> >
>> > _________________________________
>> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> _________________________________
>> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
