1. Home
  2. Ethernet LAN
  3. Large network question
  4. Page 2

Large network question

Thanks for your replies, it was very important to hear these things from you. I will just briefly summarize all the threats that you all have addressed and some that I add. I ask you once again to comment on these, since all these comments were extremely useful. I will have some references to my first post.

I will have to use gigabit swtiches between main floor switches (MFSs), since other kinds would be easily saturated by the possible load. The building has some cabling, it needs to be tested and some (or all) of the cables surely must be replaced. PCs are not my concern - I am here just to build the network. Thus, security is not my primary concern. In order of importance, these are the risks:

- Feasibility - It is very important that any kind of network is built,

- Downtime - It should work most of the time, but it is not a problem if it breaks even for a whole day. Naturally, the network should be built to avoid these problems. Downtime due to overload is not a problem, since the users will be warned about the network capacity. I am thinking about making some restrictions about the load each of the computers can impose to the network. However, this is probably not possible with switches only,

- Cost - I count at around $10k for cables, switches and routers. Computers exist already,

- Security - I don't take this too important. The users will be responsible, since the network will not be in my control. Each user will be able to setup the computer as (s)he wants. They will be warned about such possibilities (e.g. virues),

- Scalability - Absolutely not important. The network should work with current capacities and it is not important to extend it. Of course, I will not miss the opportunity to make it extensible, but if that would increase any other risk, it's out of the question.

Considering this, do you agree with the above comments? Also, are they feasible with switches only? Routers are probably too expensive to put one per floor. Maybe a few routers will be enough. Do you think that using routers to control the network is a better solution then using (un)managed switches?

About the comment that "peer-to-peer file sharing ... is going to be chaotic at best" and the next comment that I need a Windows server... It will probably happen - a dedicated server to manage the needs of this network only. That is, WWW server and DNS server at least. Do you think putting a DNS will solve this problem? DHCP is not important right now, but it could be activated later. All users will be instructed to statically bind their computers to the specific address. I will do the first-time configuration of all computers, so this will probably not be the problem. The computers should not be floor-isolated, i.e. peer-to-peer file sharing should work accross the whole building. Printing is not important (i.e. if bad, then we won't do it).

No "transient devices", like laptops or such are planned. The network is a cable-only variant. As I mentioned, scalability the last problem I will address. The wiring is totaly feasible, I have explicit contract with the owner of the building to do what I need. "You want as few layers of devices as practical" - I know that this is true, but the structure of the building makes it easier to do it 3-5 switches per floor, 1-3 main floor GBE switches. How much will this impact the performance? Virus-checks, e-mails, auto-updates and such are not counted in - i.e. I will not put such servers. WWW is probably the only user-friendly server I will possibly put. E-mails are very unimportant in this setting, because of the current (and free) in-building telephone lines.

Internet connection should be "meaty", but as I mentioned better anything than nothing. I consider that router can be configured to somehow restrict the access to the users that overload the network and/or Internet connection too much. If not, then at least a some software can be installed on the computer to do that. What do you think about this?

Does anybody have some practical info about this? Anybody that fits in this situation (considering all the above metioned things, especially $)? The practical info would be very appreciated, because that is what I mostly lack about the networks of this size.

At the end, thanks again for all your comments!

Reply to
whytwelve13
Loading thread data ...

Gigabit can be saturated too. Don't just assume that it's fast enough.

In what sense? You're supposed to put in cables and switches and routers and whatnot without any real regard for how they are going to be used?

Huh? Building a network barring some unforseen circumstance is certainly feasible. This is not usually an issue. The issue is how to go about it.

In the US it's going to be on the order of ten times that. A good budgetary number for that part of the system would be around $150K, which includes a factor for lack of definition.

What kind of computers, what network interfaces do they have, what operating system are they running, what applications are installed, to what purpose are they used, what capability is the network expected to provide that is not already present?

You will. YOU _WILL_.

In whose control will it be? I am not at all clear on your role in this.

If you think that you're not going to be responsible, then put in another $25K or so for a _good_ lawyer to write up the contracts. Don't bother to warn users, you may as well attempt to raise sea level by peeing in the ocean.

Famous last words.

My view on this is that you are badly, horribly out of your depth. Hire someone who has built a network this size before to do the work and watch over his shoulder so you learn how it's done.

Using unmanaged switches on a network this size is out of the question. You are going to have no diagnostic capability at all, and with this many ports to deal with you _need_ the diagnostic capability. Whether routers will be useful depends on information that you have not provided concerning the manner in which the network will be used. In any case, compared to the operating costs the costs of using a router instead of a switch in a given location is negligible.

You need at least one and possibly several domain controllers. Any web server should be independent of the domain controllers. The DNS server will typically be on one of the domain controllers.

Uh, how were you going to run this _without_ a DNS server? Were you going to pay for 750 or so IP addresses from your service provider?

So you're going to run around setting IP addresses? Setting up DHCP is practically trivial, far, far simpler than setting static addresses on hundreds of computers.

WHY?

Huh? You're saying that your users just won't print? Do be sure to have an armored door on your office and under no circumstances let anyone know your home address.

The owner of the building is going to put in on the order of 800 CAT5E drops for enough under $10K that you can afford to buy switches etc with the change?

Ease of installation does not equal ease of management. If the building is too large to permit all wiring on a floor to be home-run to a single closet then you want to run it to as few as possible.

So how will they get done? Hint, if you don't put in servers for this then they're going to be bombing your Internet connection instead.

You think that do you? Telephone is not a substitute for email, email is not a substitute for telephone, they serve different purposes.

You need to have a real handle on the load--a "meaty" internet connection can cost thousands of dollars a month.

I think that you need to do some more planning. Like how are you going to install software on individual computers, are you going to go around at 2AM with a CD in your hand? And what keeps the user from removing it?

From the questions you are asking, the costs you are coming up with, and the assumptions you are making it is clear that you don't have a good understanding of the real issues in running a network this size. Relying on the skill and good will of the users is a recipe for failure.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Call up your local phone companly ISP service and ask for the business internet department. The'll offer you a list of performance steps and prices. Read the fine print.

Verizon in NY and NJ does a very good job for some of my clients. YMMV.

If you put in a domain server you can enforce policy and remote control and apply patches (very important) on any client machine, no matter who sets it up.

You need central control of antivirus on all machines.

For the scale of you operation you should get XP Volume licenses for from Microsoft XP and Office, and any oother package yuo use. Youi save a little moiney up froms byt the lifetime cost savings are usage, both in buying new retail licenses and in labor cost for machine setup. In 2006 machines setup should be completely hands-off. Group Policy Objects are your friend.

You are in a position to eith save yoiu company huge amounts of money, or waste it. The former is best as a career path.

I think you need some hands-on advice.

Reply to
Al Dykes

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.