Network advice needed

[TykeMerc]

Er? Consumer level PCs now come with 1 Gbit build-in NICs, £150+ mobos include 2 x 1 Gbit NICs already. It's backbone that's the issue - if 200 people start hitting network with 1 Gbit transfers, then things might go pearshaped, for that many people however 10 Gbit networking for backbone seems justified.

The world is about to start migrating to 10 Gbit cards soon, and you are still talking 100 or even 10 Mbits

Which in 99.9999999999999% of all normal office uses (even engineering offices) would be insanely overspecced and expensive stupidity. It would also need some reasonably clever load balancing server side to avoid problems if the desktops are all gigabit.
Some desktop machines and far less laptops have gigabit NICs, most have 10/100. Gigabit switches aren't exactly cheap compared to the 100Mbit flavours that are more than fast enough with a faster backbone.

[AtW]

Gigabit switches aren't exactly cheap compared to the 100Mbit flavours that are more than fast enough with a faster backbone.

I only use 1 Gbit switches, they are very cheap. It's 10 Gbit ones thats expensive:

48 port 10/100: £394.02 ex VAT

http://www.dabs.com/products/netgear...tgear%20switch

48 port 1 Gbit: £443.83 ex VAT

http://www.dabs.com/products/netgear...tgear%20switch

Would every desktop need 1 Gbit? Probably not, the price difference however is low enough to have fast connection when you need it, this saves time and people can spend more working rather than waiting for slow network to respond.

I suppose I speak from point of view of a person who moves tens of terabytes of data over network and if you have got 200 people you'd need 10 Gbit backbone, but this can only be one switch with cheap 1 Gbit switches connected to it.

Let's say those 200 people have cost of employment of £25k pa, this means £5 mln pa or £15 mln for 3 years. Just how much more 1 Gbit network would cost? 1 Gbit NICs should be in every modern desktop, even cheap versions - the cost of 10 Gbit main switch is £3-5k, going for 1 Gbit main switches will cost you £40 quid more per switch. So how much extra cost will it be per employee in that company? It seems criminal to go for anything less than 1 Gbit in this case.

[TykeMerc]

AtW as you're fully aware the OP is talking about a real business employing real people and using Cisco business equipment.

Noddy Netgear kit isn't expensive but real Cisco switches are and apparently you have no appreciation of how a real corporate network works.

[AtW]

If you whine about cost then don't use Cisco - I have good appreciation how much they cost, which is why we use NetGear.

If you are talking 100 Mbit network, then why on earth you want to use top of the line provider? They might be really required if you are a telco who needs to do top of the range 10 Gbits stuff+, then fine - you go Cisco, but if you talk about gettin 200 people network access, then you might as well consider some other brands.

[AtW]

I'll give you real business example to show that your snobbery of non-Cisco stuff is completely unjustified (for internal company networking): we are running a big processing job that over 3 days moves around 35 TB of data between servers connected with 1 GBit links to £50 worth consumer NetGear switch, that's over 10 TB per day - the load is sustained, ie about even all the time.

If we divide this number by 200 people we'd get network quota of 50 GB per person per 24 hours.

[TykeMerc]

I'll give you real business example to show that your snobbery of non-Cisco stuff is completely unjustified (for internal company networking): we are running a big processing job that over 3 days moves around 35 TB of data between servers connected with 1 GBit links to £50 worth consumer NetGear switch, that's over 10 TB per day - the load is sustained, ie about even all the time.

If we divide this number by 200 people we'd get network quota of 50 GB per person per 24 hours.

It's very apparent you haven't a clue re actual business networking as even if you did ship 35TB of data about (which I don't believe) then you can't equate that out to 200 users on a straight division basis.

The reasons that real businesses use switches made by the likes of Cisco aren't much to do with the speed, but configurability, vlans, reliability, security and interoperability. For shifting big lumps of data about fibre channels are used not tuppenny ha'penny copper switches.

My answer to the OP was many posts ago, I'll leave it at that.

[AtW]

even if you did ship 35TB of data about (which I don't believe)

That's what we do - this is compressed data size, processing it actually deals with far more data, but as far as networking is concerned that's about the amount we send over it in a 3-4 day period when new index is build.

then you can't equate that out to 200 users on a straight division basis.

Yes you can't, but it shows that small consumer level switch can handle a lot - Cisco isn't the only option in town: of course that is important if you have vested interest in the business to avoid paying over the odds.

The reasons that real businesses use switches made by the likes of Cisco aren't much to do with the speed, but configurability, vlans, reliability, security and interoperability. For shifting big lumps of data about fibre channels are used not tuppenny ha'penny copper switches.

Cisco is not the only the player in town - in fact for small companies like 200 people they are overkill. There are plenty of other providers that do good job - HP ProCurve switches for example pretty popular, NetGear, so much that Cisco had to buy LinkSys

[NickFitz]

...even if you did ship 35TB of data about (which I don't believe)...

Have you looked into the background info out there about AtW's SKA? 35TB sounds reasonable for the index, judging by the last figures I looked at

[Sysman]

The reasons that real businesses use switches made by the likes of Cisco aren't much to do with the speed, but configurability, vlans, reliability, security and interoperability. For shifting big lumps of data about fibre channels are used not tuppenny ha'penny copper switches.

Cisco is not the only the player in town - in fact for small companies like 200 people they are overkill. There are plenty of other providers that do good job - HP ProCurve switches for example pretty popular, NetGear, so much that Cisco had to buy LinkSys

You missed the bit about Fibre Channel

[snaw]

Go 100MB to desktop, gig for servers (If needed) then etherchannel interswitch links to give 1, 2, 4, 8 GB etc.

Really depends on your traffic profile, office layout, budget etc.

Companies may avoid 10GB for many reasons, cost primarily - hardware, external lines etc. If you're shipping about lots of data then you may want to take a look at why that's happening.

GB to the desktop I'd avoid unless there's an obvious reason, and I've not seen one yet in any company I've worked at - users don't need that much bandwidth (Servers rarely do to be honest, though with the advent of virtualisation that's changing) and you're in danger of overloading your backbone if everyone is gig attached.

There is no right answer, really depends on your circumstances.

As for why you'd go Cisco, again cost is a factor - Cisco will cost you more, but as you grow (If you grow) then it's harder to get those other skills, or know the company is going to be around etc (Think Nortel). 200 users, I'd go that direction.

AtW I would ignore, as per normal - HP Procurve switches are cr4p (I know I've played with them), netscreen are decent, but that's all, Cisco bought netsys .. wow Cisco buying a company? Almost every technology they offer is acquired - what's your point, or is it just another moronic I know best outburst?