switch experts: question for you

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by col_panic, Jul 3, 2005.

  1. col_panic

    col_panic calm like a bomb Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    188,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    winter haven, fl
    how many 100/fd connections would you say it takes to saturate a gigabit fiber connection? we have a cisco catalyst 5509 and another 24 port switch piggy-backed off one of the ports running to the MDF over a single fiber run (i know, i know :o ) and are experiencing serious performance problems.

    what is the highest number of 100/fd connections you have had without performance issues over a single fiber run?
     
  2. Goonigoogoo

    Goonigoogoo Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,765
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have any experience with fiber connections, but i don't see why you guys would be having connection issues.

    I'll ask my super-techy friend tomorrow.
     
  3. stoliohranj

    stoliohranj beautiful fucking tits man

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    blitzburgh
    well, if each 100 is fully saturated, then 10. 10x100 = 1000 = gigabit

    but in all likely hood they aren't saturated. what kind of network usage are these machines being used for? just typical browsing/email, or are they dealing with streaming video/audio. either way, 3mb should be the max that any single computer would need under typical settings = 333 machines. but then if they are accessing file servers/database servers, then the throughput would be much higher and thus the number of machines would drop significantly.
     
  4. col_panic

    col_panic calm like a bomb Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    188,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    winter haven, fl
    well, here is what happened. we had acces97 and now we are on access2002, and the database crawls. our database guy thought that converting the data file would speed things up but it actually slowed it a lot. friday they were doing simple file copying to the server and it was taking 3 minutes to copy 400 MB through one switch and 117 minutes through the other.

    they also use a vendor-supported database for creating loan packages and lotus notes for email. various web-based apps, and reflections for ibm. i'm just wondering what options we have for reducing the load. what sort of load balancing is available for fiber?
     
  5. Rob

    Rob OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    88,630
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Check for FD/HD 10/100 mismatches. I have seen things like that bring segments of a network to a crawl.

    Is it slow on ALL of the ports of the piggybacked switch?

    Get your SMNP community strings and download PRTG. The free version will give you real time stats on one port for any SNMP switch. Let that run for a day to get an idea of what kind of utilization you are seeing on the gigabit fiber port.

    EDIT: Link ot PRTG: http://www.paessler.com/prtg
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2005
  6. col_panic

    col_panic calm like a bomb Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    188,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    winter haven, fl
    :cool:

    it isn't just the piggybacked switch ports that are slow - it's everything. unfortunately (and this is really fucked up) we have to set both switch and workstation ports to auto/auto after rolling "Onedesk" (maybe you've heard of it). for some reason, Onedesk is faster when set auto/auto at the workstation and switch - someone explain THAT to me ...

    i will see if i can get TACACS access to the switch for port utilization - they don't want anyone to have that, but i'm the only guy on site now so maybe i can get some cooperation
     
  7. Penguin Man

    Penguin Man Protect Your Digital Liberties

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    21,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    I had an Access 97 app at work, and when I converted it to Access 2002 it was freakin huge (110MB). Upon rewriting it from scratch in Access 2002, the DB was like 5MB. Probably not the exact same problem you're having, but it could be related :dunno:
     
  8. col_panic

    col_panic calm like a bomb Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    188,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    winter haven, fl
    we run a ~20MB program file (.mdb) on the local drive that is linked to two data files on the network ~150MB and 180MB

    this performance issue did not occur until we switched to access2002 :dunno:
     

Share This Page