Speed performance!!
Hi all My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 Clients are on these four subnets. 140.222.150.0/24 140.222.181.0/24 140.222.237.0/24 140.222.200.0/24 There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. All clients get DHCP ip addresses As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within one subnet instead of transferring through router for subnet-to-subnet transfer. However, these five subnet ip addresses are not contiguous. How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do next? Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should be better way to handle this. I have only several months of network experience. I am still newbie. I will appreciate your help Thanks in adv. jw __ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Speed performance!!
Hi all My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 Clients are on these four subnets. 140.222.150.0/24 140.222.181.0/24 140.222.237.0/24 140.222.200.0/24 There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. All clients get DHCP ip addresses As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within one subnet instead of transferring through router for subnet-to-subnet transfer. However, these five subnet ip addresses are not contiguous. How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do next? Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should be better way to handle this. I have only several months of network experience. I am still newbie. I will appreciate your help Thanks in adv. jw __ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speed performance!!
Wow..Two questions. What is doing your routing and What program is doing the file transfer? Pete *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 11/3/2000 at 3:05 PM jeongwoo park wrote: >Hi all >My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 >Clients are on these four subnets. >140.222.150.0/24 >140.222.181.0/24 >140.222.237.0/24 >140.222.200.0/24 > >There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any >of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. >All clients get DHCP ip addresses >As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. >As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip >addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea >of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into >one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within >one subnet instead of transferring through router for >subnet-to-subnet transfer. >However, these five subnet ip addresses are not >contiguous. >How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? >By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I >got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? >If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do >next? >Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 >stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should >be better way to handle this. > >I have only several months of network experience. I am >still newbie. >I will appreciate your help >Thanks in adv. > >jw > > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >>From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. >http://experts.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]
RE: Speed performance!!
I don't think supernet will solve this problem! One of the purposes of Aggregate route is to reduce router's memory and stable network. You still have four subnets and router will route these traffic. My suggestion is : 1. Check Router forwarding rate( upgrade router ). 2. Implement Queuing in your router. 3. enable ip route cache in each interface. 4. Check file server's CPU utllization. 5. Check file server NIC and switch port setting( 100/10, Full/half ). 6. Check backbone capacity. 7. filter unnecessary protocols in the network. Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCNA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jeongwoo park Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 7:57 AM To: Groupstudy Subject: Speed performance!! Hi all My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 Clients are on these four subnets. 140.222.150.0/24 140.222.181.0/24 140.222.237.0/24 140.222.200.0/24 There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. All clients get DHCP ip addresses As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within one subnet instead of transferring through router for subnet-to-subnet transfer. However, these five subnet ip addresses are not contiguous. How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do next? Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should be better way to handle this. I have only several months of network experience. I am still newbie. I will appreciate your help Thanks in adv. jw __ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.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]
RE: Speed performance!!
If you are using a Cisco router what type of switching is it using of the interfaces in question, process-switch, fast-switch, etc. ? Take a look at the interface and processor utilization as well, and the number of broadcast and errors on those segments. I have found those are more likely causes of poor performance than packets being routed. sho int sho proc cpu Carlton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jeongwoo park Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:57 PM To: Groupstudy Subject: Speed performance!! Hi all My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 Clients are on these four subnets. 140.222.150.0/24 140.222.181.0/24 140.222.237.0/24 140.222.200.0/24 There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. All clients get DHCP ip addresses As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within one subnet instead of transferring through router for subnet-to-subnet transfer. However, these five subnet ip addresses are not contiguous. How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do next? Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should be better way to handle this. I have only several months of network experience. I am still newbie. I will appreciate your help Thanks in adv. jw __ Do You Yahoo!? >From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. http://experts.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]
Re: Speed performance!!
JW, be more specific about your network topology. Where are the users in reference to the server? What type of network hardware are you using (hubs, switches, etc.) and with is the type and speed of your WAN links if any?? If you network does not have the adequate horse power and bandwidth to handle the load needed to access the server, summarization will not help much. Granted it helps in optimizing routing but if 600 users are trying to access a server on a hub, you are still going to suffer. jeongwoo park wrote: > Hi all > My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 > Clients are on these four subnets. > 140.222.150.0/24 > 140.222.181.0/24 > 140.222.237.0/24 > 140.222.200.0/24 > > There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any > of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. > All clients get DHCP ip addresses > As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. > As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip > addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea > of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into > one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within > one subnet instead of transferring through router for > subnet-to-subnet transfer. > However, these five subnet ip addresses are not > contiguous. > How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? > By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I > got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? > If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do > next? > Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 > stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should > be better way to handle this. > > I have only several months of network experience. I am > still newbie. > I will appreciate your help > Thanks in adv. > > jw > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. > http://experts.yahoo.com/ > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Willie Bell CCIE# 6075, CCDP email [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speed performance!!
If you supernet you will put all stations on one segement. Your network would not slow down but come down. You need to look to some switching design with fastether channel to the server. Duck - Original Message - From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 3:56 PM Subject: Speed performance!! > Hi all > My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 > Clients are on these four subnets. > 140.222.150.0/24 > 140.222.181.0/24 > 140.222.237.0/24 > 140.222.200.0/24 > > There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any > of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. > All clients get DHCP ip addresses > As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. > As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip > addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea > of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into > one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within > one subnet instead of transferring through router for > subnet-to-subnet transfer. > However, these five subnet ip addresses are not > contiguous. > How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? > By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I > got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? > If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do > next? > Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 > stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should > be better way to handle this. > > I have only several months of network experience. I am > still newbie. > I will appreciate your help > Thanks in adv. > > jw > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. > http://experts.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]
Re: Speed performance!!
I think it may be somewhat premature to assume that the performance issue stems from a lack of bandwidth to the server. I think we still need to see the topology logically and get a feel for what devices are doing what. Who's to say this isn't 600 people on shared 10 with a nt box doing some forwarding :) *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 11/7/2000 at 10:13 AM Donald B Johnson Jr wrote: >If you supernet you will put all stations on one segement. Your network >would not slow down but come down. >You need to look to some switching design with fastether channel to the >server. >Duck >- Original Message - >From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 3:56 PM >Subject: Speed performance!! > > >> Hi all >> My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24 >> Clients are on these four subnets. >> 140.222.150.0/24 >> 140.222.181.0/24 >> 140.222.237.0/24 >> 140.222.200.0/24 >> >> There is such a slow data transfer rate going from any >> of these 4 subnets to the subnet where the server is. >> All clients get DHCP ip addresses >> As a suggestion, someone told me to supernet. >> As far as I know, in order to supernet, subnet ip >> addresses should be contiguous, and I think the idea >> of supernetting is to include multiple subnets into >> one supernetted subnet. So we can transfer data within >> one subnet instead of transferring through router for >> subnet-to-subnet transfer. >> However, these five subnet ip addresses are not >> contiguous. >> How can I supernet non-contiguous subnet ip addresses? >> By following Cisco book instruction on supernetting, I >> got this address: 140.222.0.0/16 Is this correct? >> If this was correctly supernetted, what should I do >> next? >> Should I go to each individual stations (about 600 >> stations) for new TCP/IP setup? I am sure there should >> be better way to handle this. >> >> I have only several months of network experience. I am >> still newbie. >> I will appreciate your help >> Thanks in adv. >> >> jw >> >> >> >> __ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer. >> http://experts.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]
