Torino101 Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 My IT skills are passable, but I fecking hate networks and having to deal with them. Please could someone shed some light on this... We have a small network of 19 machines plus various printers etc. with a central server. They are connected via a main switch that is an old d-link 10/100 unit, it has been super reliable and never given any hassles at all. On the server which all the workstations connect to is a piece of veterinary software that houses every detail in the practice. Working with this software directly on the server is lightning fact, working over the network is torturous. The guy who wrote the software has suggested we upgrade to a gigabit switch. I'm not adverse to doing that as is easy and not expensive, however please can anyone tell me if for the older workstations on the network aren't they still going to be crippled by slow 10/100 connections on their mobos or cards? And even on the new motherboards how can you tell if they have gigabit capability. I seriously apologize in advance if this is a moronic query, as I say I avoid dealing with networks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Even if the devices are only 100M each, a Gb switch will potentially have higher throughput so you may still see some benefit. If it's ports are bi or tri rate (10/100 or 10/100/1000) then it could potentially be very easy to simply swap it. Everything depends on what the performance restriction is right now. There will be a bottle neck somewhere - there has to be otherwise it'd run at the speed of light If the server connection is the most congested you may benefit from putting the new switch in and just putting in a Gb card in the server. That may be enough. If your devices are running windows either the network settings or device manager should let you know the speed capabilities. Alternatively Google each model. Gb cards are so cheap now anyway. If Unix - not a clue Could waffle and waffle but trying to keep it simple Other details that will come up : Is it a flat network? i.e. all IP's in same range? Are there vlans? etc If it's as simple as a switch with minimal config (if any!) it should be very straightforward. Edited September 18, 2015 by Scotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Switches are pretty cheap and easy to swap, so it's a good start. As Scotty says, you can still get a benefit even if the individual PCs have 10/100, as the capacity of the switch will have just gone up a factor of 10 - i.e. if 10 PCs are asking for data they can have it at 1000/10=100 instead of 100/10=10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 You may find it isn't a switch and its actually a hub, as in the distant past a switch was quite expensive. However modern switches are cheap as chips these days in comparison to what they were. I've just put some cat6 in at home just in case I wanted to run 10Gb at some point, highly unlikely but you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Disagree with all of the above. Even 10mb per second is a lot of data. 19 workstations is not a lot, even if all were simultaneously requesting data. Sounds like something else hammering the network to me. Suggesting a switch upgrade is too easy. Lazy solution when it may not be the issue. Have you ran any network monitoring software to see what is actually going through the switch and what capacity it is handling? Is someone running streaming of some kind? I've seen it so many times.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 The problem with trying to solve a network problem when you don't know much about networks its never going to be easy. A new 24 port Gigabit switch is only £60-80 really depending on what you want as an unmanaged switch some are even less, its easy worth a try and seeing if that is the failure than playing with everything else. If nothing else they have a shiny piece of networking kit that will be ready for any upgrade or expansion that they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torino101 Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Here's the current setup. Definitely a switch. Edited September 18, 2015 by Torino101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 The problem with trying to solve a network problem when you don't know much about networks its never going to be easy. A new 24 port Gigabit switch is only £60-80 really depending on what you want as an unmanaged switch some are even less, its easy worth a try and seeing if that is the failure than playing with everything else. If nothing else they have a shiny piece of networking kit that will be ready for any upgrade or expansion that they need. Yes, it is difficult to diagnose on the basis of a forum post. That said, whilst it might only be £60-80 - it might also only be 10 seconds to stop someone having something running that shouldn't be. I can go back 10 years and recall someone who spend £4,500 on a new server in order to resolve a speed problem. They got it all set up and discovered it had nothing to do with their old server. It was a rogue piece of software sapping the network of bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 I'm with nnmm here but I guess the problem is that the guy who wrote the software suggested this route and until its done it will be the mantra-like reply before you get any more input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) When designing small networks people often forget the point of the network - I.e. To aid transport from end-points to the services it needs. So, to properly design it, not-overspec/spend, you need to understand what your end-points do. In your scenario for example, it reads to me like all the end points communicate with a software platform on a single server. In that scenario, the fact that your end-points are switched isn't your issue - it's the fact that your server will be connected on a single port. So, your server has a single 100Mbps FDX connection, and it has 19 clients connected at 100Mbps. That ratio isn't a great one from a performance perspective. While the switching removes collisions on a single connection (I.e. Endpoint to the switch port), you're still utterly reliant on the server connection - a single 100Mbps contended connection. Fix? Stick in a 10/100/1Gbps switch, leave the clients alone, but upgrade the server to a 1Gb connection. You'll have increase the server link capacity no end and at a cheap price - you don't have to upgrade your end points. Edited September 19, 2015 by Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 To give you an example, a lot of smaller networks I used to come across were configured terribly - although I get why. Buy a switch, plug stuff in - need more ports, buy another switch, plug it in. All OK so far...Get a third switch, plug it in - NOOOO, all starts to go wrong in terms of bandwidth and access management. Excuse the poor diagrams, am tired and am waiting for bacon to be delivered. The issue with the below is that the end points at the end of the chain have to traverse multiple switches to get to their services. It's just not ideal. You can also run in to Ethernet limitations too (5/4/3 rule if you're interested). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Compare this with a properly constructed star set up - far more effective and scalable. You could arguably reduce the edge switches to a cheaper unit too. This is the same model you'll see in large corps. One HUGE switch matrix in the middle with multi-gb transport out to 100Mbps desk-side switches. More often than not nowadays the edge switches are also 1Gbps too, but the architecture still remains valid. As a side note, it's not that unusual to find clients that have invested pretty heavily in delivering Gb Ethernet to the desktop, only to put in a 100Mbps capable IP Phone and have the laptop/desktop plugged in to the phone...at 100Mbps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 All of that is great advice, but I still think he should rule out something hogging the network first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Disagree with all of the above. All of that is great advice Make your mind up! Edited September 19, 2015 by Scotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 My point is that it is great advice once the other potential causes have been ruled out. Oh, and also that Mac's explanation of the position was better than anyone else had come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Mac are you suggesting that the server should go into a switch all by itself and any additional switches should be plugged into this one (including the user machines etc) In my case the pc is plugged into the router. The router is connected to a switch in the loft AND to a separate switch under the TV (to which tv/xbox/dvd player go) There is a port free in the gigaswitch in the loft (which sends terminations to each ethernet port in the house) which I would have plugged the server into. So DON'T do that and instead plug server into another switch which in turn connects to the main one sending cabling throughout the house? Apologies for the hijack Torino I just got interested in that topology diagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Torino I wanted to ask is it just this piece of software that behaves like this or do others have the same local vs network performance issue? (just curious - as you will have seen I won't have much by way of help, sadly) I just recall MS Word behaving like a doc when I defaulted to a network printer which wasn't set up properly but very fast when I changed the printer it searched for so wondered if there was a misconfigured network setting it is wasting time looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveP Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Also, running something as simple as wireshark on the server and seeing what the overall traffic flow is, the port that it is using, the frequency of the packets, the round trip time, etc might be enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torino101 Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Fix? Stick in a 10/100/1Gbps switch, leave the clients alone, but upgrade the server to a 1Gb connection. Also, running something as simple as wireshark on the server and seeing what the overall traffic flow is, the port that it is using, the frequency of the packets, the round trip time, etc might be enlightening. Many thanks everyone, this all makes sense. Will implement and report back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Be careful with WireShark - unless you set it up properly it may not tell you the truth Your NIC needs to support Promiscuous mode otherwise it'll only report on its owned sourced/targeted traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burble Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Mac are you suggesting that the server should go into a switch all by itself and any additional switches should be plugged into this one (including the user machines etc) If the network is small enough to have everything (server, router, desktops and so on) plugged into the same switch then do it that way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 The topmost bit is where I cannibalised Mac's drawing. Excluding the microserver connection, the rest is how my network looks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now