shuld I switch to gigabit

hkgonra · Sep 21, 2004

should I switch to gigabit

I manage the network here at work. We have around 50 pc's on the lan. Should I see a big difference by switching to gigabit switches ? My building is wired in cat5e. Most of my pc's have gigabit ethernet cards in them. I am thinking of switching but didn't know if it was worth the money.

bchur83 · Sep 21, 2004

As long as what you currently have is working fine, I see no need to upgrade. Don't fix what isnt broken, thats how I see it.

Daewood · Sep 21, 2004

i thought that to run gigabit you have to have cat6 or cat7 for the max speeds

Shazbot · Sep 21, 2004

I manage the network here at work. We have around 50 pc's on the lan. Should I see a big difference by switching to gigabit switches ? My building is wired in cat5e. Most of my pc's have gigabit ethernet cards in them. I am thinking of switching but didn't know if it was worth the money.

The difference is probably not enough to justify the cost for every user, and if they all really did need the speed, you’d probably have to upgrade your server(s) to keep up anyway.

I would upgrade the servers to gig though, if they’re not already.

Shazbot · Sep 21, 2004

i thought that to run gigabit you have to have cat6 or cat7 for the max speeds

Nope, the cat 5e spec was created specifically for gig ethernet. Category 6 is a higher quality of signal, but requires not only Cay 6 cable, but cat 6 panels, jacks, and cross connects. Most people using cat 6 cable are actually out-of-spec for this reason. Cat 7 is not yet a standard, it's a "proposed standard" that some companies are using to push product. There is no need for it yet.

hkgonra · Sep 21, 2004

Thanks guys.

hkgonra · Sep 21, 2004

Shazbot said:
The difference is probably not enough to justify the cost for every user, and if they all really did need the speed, you’d probably have to upgrade your server(s) to keep up anyway.

I would upgrade the servers to gig though, if they’re not already.

I am not running anything to the servers but backups. All documents are kept on the local machine and then backed up to the server at night. My servers have gigabit cards in them. Wouldn't I only get an advantage if I made all the switches gigabit so that the info can actually flow to the servers at full speed ?

hkgonra · Sep 21, 2004

One more quick question while I am on the subject. Right now I have 3 16 port switches linked together , is there any advantage to getting fewer switches with more ports or am I better off the way I am ? Or does it even make a difference either way ?

SK8 · Sep 21, 2004

Get a bigger switch. I get around 13mbps on lan with 10/100. It does take for ever to backup 34gb of music.

TalRW · Sep 21, 2004

hkgonra said:
I am not running anything to the servers but backups. All documents are kept on the local machine and then backed up to the server at night. My servers have gigabit cards in them. Wouldn't I only get an advantage if I made all the switches gigabit so that the info can actually flow to the servers at full speed ?

Then the question really you need to answer first is this. Do you need that extra speed anyways? I mean do you wake up and your server is still backing it up, I mean if it's all done automatically and you never even notice then you probably don't even need to shell out the money for new cables and new swithces.

hkgonra · Sep 21, 2004

TalRW said:
Then the question really you need to answer first is this. Do you need that extra speed anyways? I mean do you wake up and your server is still backing it up, I mean if it's all done automatically and you never even notice then you probably don't even need to shell out the money for new cables and new swithces.

All my cables are good, it is just the switches. I do have a couple programs that run all the data for 3-4 pc's off one local machine.

Shazbot · Sep 22, 2004

My servers have gigabit cards in them. Wouldn't I only get an advantage if I made all the switches gigabit so that the info can actually flow to the servers at full speed ?

The traffic from all of the users is condensed onto the link to the server. Generally speaking, the bigger you can make that link, the better. For e.g. if users complain about network slowness anytime dump large files to the server you can fix the problem by going gig at the server and leaving the users at 100mb.

now I have 3 16 port switches linked together , is there any advantage to getting fewer switches with more ports or am I better off the way I am ? Or does it even make a difference either way ?

If the switches are linked at gig then you’re fine; if they’re linked at 100mbit then you should consider an upgrade at some point to remove any chokepoint

I agree TalRW and bchur83, if you’re not having a problem then you can probably get more value out of that money someplace else. The one caveat is that if the network is going to grow soon it’s good to upgrade the infrastructure first.

hkgonra · Sep 22, 2004

We are probably going to be buying the building next door and expanding. That is why I am thinking about sppeding things up. I will have to connect them somehow as well. It is about 250ft between buildings.

Shazbot · Sep 22, 2004

Congrats on the pending expansion. Always fun.

I wouldn't worry too much about gig to the users, especially if you're expanding (more users at gig = bad thing), but I strongly suggest looking at connecting the switches at a gig.

My personal preference for building-to-building links is to trench fiber and run at a gig. At 250' and assuming these aren't high rises you can get away with multimode fiber connections for not much cost. If you have line of sight there might be a decent wireless solution for you as well, depending on the type and quantitiy of traffic between buildings.

I'd avoid of cable / DSL / T1 for such a short distance, but if it comes down to it you could get business DSL / Cable and use a VPN tunnel as a last resort.

Hope this helps!

Edited for clarity.

bchur83 · Sep 22, 2004

hkgonra said:
One more quick question while I am on the subject. Right now I have 3 16 port switches linked together , is there any advantage to getting fewer switches with more ports or am I better off the way I am ? Or does it even make a difference either way ?

One advantage of multiple switches is for fail safe. If one of the 3 switches dies, you still have 2/3 of your network running. If you were to replace the 3 switches with a single switch, and it failed, your whole network is down. But on the other side, if you have 3 switches and the computers need to communicate between each of them, they will be slightly slower than a single switch, due to the link between them sharing the load. If the uplink between them it 1000base, then that would be better.

What do you use your network for other than backups? Internet? Intercommunication between client computers? I would say that if you have to money to upgrade, then you might as well do it. If you were to upgrade to 1000base, you still wont get the full potential of gigabit with Cat5E cable (350mhz Rated) You probably will notice a speed up with the backups, but other than that, I wouldnt do it. If your backups are completing before the next day, then an upgrade wouldnt be needed. Like I said though, if you have the resources to upgrade now, you might as well do it. It is alway nice to be ahead in technology, rather than behind.

ElroyCarbon · Sep 22, 2004

My understanding is that we are currently using only 2 pairs of wires in the CAT5E bumdle and Gigabit will use all 4 pairs. We have all Brand new Dual CPU Intel servers with onboard Gigabit. We also Have Brand new Cisco Gigabit switches, so I ordered these cards for a few workstations to see if there is going to be a noticable increase in speed. The thing that sucks is that the card in most gateways are still only using 10MB cards so I only see the increase on most LANS not WANS. I suppose it wouldnt matter unless you had fiber between the locations anyhow. I'll reply back when I receive the cards from Newegg, hope it's noticable. CYA!

webfreak · Sep 22, 2004

My advice is to run a fiber link between the bulidings, because that 250ft distance is going to be pushing the limit of cat5e by the time you get from server room to server room. The length limit of cat5e is about 330ft before you start losing signal strength. I pulled a ton of fiber for my university last summer (I'm not joking). There isn't much to it. It's great for running between buildings. And ElroyCarbon, you're correct, 10/100mbit only uses 2 of the 4 copper pairs (1,2 and 3,6). Gig uses all 4 pairs.

hkgonra · Sep 22, 2004

How much cost is it to run that much fiber. I can do all the work ( I think ) but how much in materials and equipment ?

webfreak · Sep 25, 2004

I don't know about the costs. You'll have to research that info yourself. I can point you in a direction though - Fiberdyne. I'm pretty sure that's where my Uni gets their fiber from.

Shazbot · Sep 25, 2004

Google for fiber or network cable contractors in your area and get some estimates from them. Ask upfront if for references they’ve trenching fiber between buildings for. If they can’t/won’t provide them don’t use that contractor.

I really wouldn’t try this without some prior experience. One of the things your contractor takes care of is the necessary permits and “call before you dig” rules. And you’ll still need someone to tip the fiber anyway.

As for the cost, probably a few thousand (but it depends on a bunch of things, obviously). If your company can afford to buy the building next door, they can probably afford to run the cable. Have the thought about how to add a new building into their phone system so they have inside dialing between them? They may end up needing cable for that as well, which helps justify the cost.

Hope this helps!

shuld I switch to gigabit

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads