On Apr 24, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:38 PM, John Watlington > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Proposed change to the hardware spec: >> >> From one to four access points may use an simpler switch, >> connected to the server over a 100 Mb/s link. From five to seven >> access points will need a better switch, which provides a 1 GB/s >> link to the server. >> >> This means that a 1 GB/s interface should be specified for the >> servers. > > Theoretically, yes... but perhaps this is a bit over the top. For the > space we are aiming... > > - the XS services will bottleneck well before saturating 1Gb/s > traffic > - 'upstream' services that the XS is routing will bottleneck well > before 1Gb/s > > if we see a 7-AP setup, it will be there to support either a large > number of laptops or a location with obstacles that needs many > antennaes. In any case, it will support laptops mostly peering w > each other.
Wrong. Right now all collaboration moves through the ejabberd server. We hope to change that, but it won't happen for roughly a year. > If we are designing for a "client base" of laptops that we actually > expect to saturate 1Gb, then... we need to start recommending a > mid-range server cluster, perhaps a SAN, all costing a few megabucks > ;-) But a school of 250 students will need at least five access points. It only takes two laptops to saturate a channel (OK, maybe one). So you are saying that squid or apache can't keep up with feeding ten streams at 11+ Mb/s each ? wad _______________________________________________ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel