[RESOLVED] 6 16's or 3 24's?

Im setting up a big lan for gaming purposes. I was wondering what i should go with: 6 16 port 10/100 switches or 3 24 port 10/100 switches. Would either combonation cause more or less network traffic?

Wyz-Man

[CJK]

Go with switches.

------------------
Your mother looks like a hampster and your father smells of elderberries!

Thats my question...would 6 16 port switches cause more traffic than 3 24 port switches?

[CJK]

sorry read through too fast. I would go with the 6 16's because it seperates the traffic a little more.

------------------
Your mother looks like a hampster and your father smells of elderberries!

[cyberhh]

I beg to differ - the switch uses it's own IP range and the way a switch opperates - go with the three switches:

1. A switch allows full duplex communication at 100mbps port to port - it is intilligent - it only routes information from the entry port to the correct recieving port - if that port is identified - keeping local traffic off the common link port.

2. If you set the ports according to how traffic patters work you should eliminate the most common traffic and keep it in the switch - ie. put workgroups on the same switch - run from each server to each switch - so that each server has a port on all the switches - this will allow you server to have a path to communicate with each switch workgroup without generating a ton of traffic between switches - keep in mind that you only have 100 MegaBITS (12.5 MB per second) of bandwidth to share - focus on efficiency on a per port basis and you will understand what I mean.

------------------
Death is lighter than a feather - duty heavier than a mountian.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cyberhh:
I beg to differ - the switch uses it's own IP range and the way a switch opperates - go with the three switches:

1. A switch allows full duplex communication at 100mbps port to port - it is intilligent - it only routes information from the entry port to the correct recieving port - if that port is identified - keeping local traffic off the common link port.

</font>

Well I agree with the first part almost. Keep as many people on the least amount of switchs that way it dosent have to make as many hops to get to other ports on other switchs that is the purpouse of a switch elimniate hops as compared to hubs. For Fast Ethernet 100BASE-TX the maximum number of repeater hops is two for a Class II hub.
(With three HUBs connected together, the MAX speed is reduced from 100Mbps to 10Mbps.)
As far as the use of ips in a switch that is irelevant a router is the only thing that uses ips a switch operates on level 2 of the osi which is it actually looking a the mac adddress. .X


------------------
No really That paper thingy you took out of the box with all the words on it was not packing material its called a "MANUAL"

[This message has been edited by x_789 (edited February 20, 2001).]

I have to agree with X. When you add any more than two hops, 100mbps is impossible. Also neither hubs nor switches handle IPs. Go with as few hubs/switches as possible.

Go w/ the larger switches. Switches do handle IP's if they are layer3. They have layer 5 swiches right now and eventually could possibly be layer 7.

by the way, Unix OSI is 4 layers not 7 !!!!


[This message has been edited by xtac (edited February 21, 2001).]

Thanks alot guys. I think i got it now.

Wyz-Man

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by xtac:
Go w/ the larger switches. Switches do handle IP's if they are layer3. They have layer 5 swiches right now and eventually could possibly be layer 7.

by the way, Unix OSI is 4 layers not 7 !!!!

(edited February 21, 2001).]</font>

What does unix have to do with hardware? Also did you know the IP model has 5 layers ? dont really see the relevance. But thanks anyway X
OH also how would you have a switch that ran at the aplication layer that seems somewhat impossible? any links to sites showing this new fangeled technology would be greatly apriciated. X


------------------
No really That paper thingy you took out of the box with all the words on it was not packing material its called a "MANUAL"

[This message has been edited by x_789 (edited February 21, 2001).]

I thought that the IP model had only 4 layers??

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by RIOT:
I thought that the IP model had only 4 layers?? </font>

shuuu be be quiet im trying to make a point. X


------------------
No really That paper thingy you took out of the box with all the words on it was not packing material its called a "MANUAL"

[thirdfey]

x_789 ever heard of Foundry switches? Not only do they kick Cisco's @ss but they have switches that can run in any layer of the OSI model you want as long as you got da $$$$$ Cisco has wet dreams of being able to perform as well as these babies not mention those other networking companies (wannabies). http://www.foundrynet.com/products/Webswitches.html Ask and ye shall recieve, says the Lord thy Thirdfey. I don't have a God complex, I am God

------------------
Soylent Green is People!!!! Its made of People!!!!!

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thirdfey:
x_789 ever heard of Foundry switches? Not only do they kick Cisco's @ss but they have switches that can run in any layer of the OSI model you want as long as you got da $$$$$ Cisco has wet dreams of being able to perform as well as these babies not mention those other networking companies (wannabies). http://www.foundrynet.com/products/Webswitches.html Ask and ye shall recieve, says the Lord thy Thirdfey. I don't have a God complex, I am God

</font>

I agree 100% !

Cisco have some nice products but they are very delicate.

you may encounter a lot of difficulties in setting up to work right (even if you do it the right way !) I've seen so many cisco gear fail where other "unknown" gear worked perfectly.

It seems cisco gear although appropriate for some applications requires a lot more efforts to set up and to maintain.

I know of one site in my company where they replaced the old gear with cisco catalyst 6000. it took experts from cisco almost a week to figure out why all the ports won't go to 100Mbit. (and that's after they replaced cables, AC power sources etc..)

------------------
Computers do exactly what you tell them to do - not exactly what you want them to do ...

I did not realize that Foundry already had layer 7 switches. I need to keep up with this sh*t.