Hi All,
I am looking at this configuration:
[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet]
The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be
a better design to take out
At 9:26 AM -0500 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I am looking at this configuration:
>
>[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet]
>
>The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The que
Anyone want
to "do the math"?
Very best and happy Friday, G.
VP OGC
> Subject: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
> I am looking at this configuration:
>
> [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBr
> idge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Swit
If the reason for the second switch is you ran out of ports, replacing
it with a larger switch is fine if money in no object or you have
another use for these two switches. Otherwise I wouldn't worry, the
latency, though measurable is nothing to worry about compared to your
Internet connection.
Do you know if there was a reason for Switch 3 being in the design? That's
what I would try to find out
Maybe it was necessary because Switch 2 is located in a wiring closet,
whereas Switch 3 and the Wireless Bridge are in the main distribution
frame. Or maybe Switch 2 only has fiber-optic
l limit of
>how many members of a "RAIS array" one can cram into a building.
>
>So, boy and girl wonders, I've heard the magic number of "7". Anyone want
>to "do the math"?
>
>Very best and happy Friday, G.
>VP OGC
>
>
>
> >
In the topology given, the real bottleneck is the wireless bridge ( assuming
11 meg shared ), and of course the ISP link speed.
the switch to switch latency is not the killer here.
other factors are numbers of users, especially the numbers crossing the
wireless link. These suckers still tend to
2 10:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
At 9:26 AM -0500 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I am looking at this configuration:
>
>[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---dista
nce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[
wireless link to switch to Internet.
Thanks
KM
>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
>Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:12:32 -0500
>
>Do you know if there was a reason
location
of switch4, that is the only location DSL is available.
Hope you had a Great Easter
KM
>From: "Mark Odette II"
>Reply-To: "Mark Odette II"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
>Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:59:18 -0500
>
is connected via
> ISDN(128K). Does anyone see any problems with traffic going across an
ISDN
> link to switch to wireless link to switch to Internet.
>
> Thanks
> KM
>
> >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> >Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> >To
Although most of the latency comes from your wireless link and the ISP
connection, it still doesn't mean you shouldn't optimize the setup a bit.
You mentioned in a later email that the reason for switch2 and 3 is that
they needed more ports. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that
type
Although most of the latency comes from your wireless link and the ISP
connection, it still doesn't mean you shouldn't optimize the setup a bit.
You mentioned in a later email that the reason for switch2 and 3 is that
they needed more ports. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that
type
13 matches
Mail list logo
