You did the most important thing, enabling portfast. That will speed up performance on startup. Also check for a duplex mismatch problem on every port. You may want to hard code everything as full duplex, (assuming the ports just connect a single device). Don't rely on auto-negotiation since it doesn't work a lot of the time. (On the other hand, there are cases where auto-negotiation works better than hard-coding, so do some testing first.)
Keeping STP enabled shouldn't be a problem. It's the safest thing to do unless you are absolutely sure nobody is going to add any switches to the network in a redundant way. It's hard to ensure that. These days if you order a hub from some vendors, you get a switch anyway. End users could order a hub to add devices somewhere in the network and actually get a switch and possibly cause problems. STP won't affect the routers unless they are configured as bridges, which they probably aren't. STP does send BPDU packets every two seconds, which some people could consider a performance issue. These packets go to a multicast address. A good network interface card (in end devices or routers) will ignore those multicasts and not interrupt the CPU. Unfortunately, not all PC NICs are that good. Regarding testing the performance, do you have any before and after stats? How was the performance before you swapped out the hubs and put in switches? Maybe it was never so hot to start with. On the other hand, it is possible that the servers actually liked being in a shared Ethernet environment and are overwhelmed by a switched environment. In a shared environment, contention for the medium would slow down the requests to the server. Now the server may be getting requests much more quickly than before. What is the CPU on the servers? What protocols are you running? TCP/IP or IPX/NCP or NWLink (Novell's NetBIOS?) With TCP and NetBIOS you can often prove that the problem isn't with the network if you have a Sniffer. You can show that the server ACKs quickly but then takes a long time to process requests. If ACKs are getting through quickly, then the network is OK. Priscilla At 11:57 AM 4/23/02, Luis Wiedemann wrote: >Well...the branches dont have more than 24 hosts, including the server. all >branches with the exception of the main branch only consist of one novell >5.1 server, one 24 port wc-2950-24, and a 1720 router that connects the >branches to our main branch, which then go to the datacenter through a 2620. >we have nothing to do with the routers as the data center suppllies the >support and config for the routers. > >the main branch has 10 switches. mainly 2950-24's but we also have 2 >2950-48g's and a 3508 to connect a few switches via fiber gigbit. i did port >fast all of the client ports on all of the switches. im also hearing bad >things about STP. A co-worker has been saying that in his experience with >intel? and hp? switches that STP was a horrible thing to have on. of course >cisco says to keep it on. we dont have redundant links in our network so how >important is it? our datacenter says that it may also be affecting the >routers? > >So far this group has been awesome with some very useful info. i hope one >day i can help as much as you guys/gals do! > > > >thanks again > >Luis > >""Luis Wiedemann"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > hey all, > > im new to the newsgroup, nad pretty new to real workd cisco. my experience > > comes mainly from reading cisco press and sybex books along with a few > > virtual labs. now im consulting for a small bank that just implemented a > > swicthed network from thier old stacked hubs. everything is going OK but i > > still feel that the network may be a bit laggy. not sure if its the >switches > > or what, so my real question is.... what are the first things you do when > > confuring a new switch? I know I run the setup and configure IP, Netmask , > > Default GW etc....we dont have any redundant links, so should i disable >STP? > > how about port fast? its only one vlan, and we only have one swicth per > > subnet, except for the main branch which has one switch per dept, but they > > all connect to the same server and there are no routers for internal > > traffic, only to connect to the branches via fractional t1's. so i dont > > think vlans are an option here...anyway...you guys/gals know of any >special > > things i should be looking for? > > > > tia > > luis ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42345&t=42276 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
