«

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:19:20 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:

>pawihte wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>> why? wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:56:33 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> pawihte wrote:
>>>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>> pawihte wrote:
>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> pawihte wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'll be grateful if anyone could tell me this: Will
>>>>>>>>>> there be
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> conflict if I link two computers with a crossover cable
>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> built-in Gb ports, and at the same time connect them
>>>>>>>>>> both to

<big snip>

>>>> Or at least the faster interface doesn't become the lower
>>>> metric,
>>>> hence default.
>>>>
>>>> Watch the default gw doesn't change to 10.1.1.x.
>>>>
>>>> Put in each host file
>>>>
>>>> pc1backup 10.1.1.1
>>>> pc2backup 10.1.1.2
>>>>
>>>> That's how you refer to the new IPs/link.
>>>>
>>>> Something I may try today, just for fun.
>>>>
>>>> Me
>>> Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing the
>>> switch
>>> with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can create,
>>> manage
>>> and troubleshoot quite easily.
>>
>> Despite your sarcastic reply, what why? said is not all that
>> difficult to grasp. No one is born an expert in anything and most

It's not that simple either, it's after a lot of experience work and
self taught and testing.

>> people are quite capable of expanding their knowledge, especially
>> with some helpful hints. And many of us enjoy the learning
>> process instead of choosing the easiest path.
>
>Couldn't agree more. Although monkey see, monkey do doesn't always teach
>you anything.
>
>> I taught myself my
>> current profession completely unaided and was chosen to receive
>> one of the nation's highest awards for pioneering work in science
>> and technology. (I declined for ethical reasons).
>
>Good for you. I chose to go down a certified instructor lead path
>coupled with real world experience.

I skipped the courses, our company has issues paying out for them. As
for RW experience, there is a test lab on my desk at work (Cisco
switch/router at home) so when ever new kit arrives I always build in a
few days to test, play and setup.

>> I have tried out part of my scheme with the four computers I have
>> at home and have no problem connecting two computers at the same
>> time at 100 Mbps and 1 Gb/s. Copying large files chosen at random
>> to and from undefragged drives, I get average transfer speeds of
>> 38-47 MB/s with the Gb LAN and about 8.5 MB/s without. However,
>> *sometimes* the two Gb computers have trouble seeing the other
>> two and connecting to the internet while both connections are
>> enabled. I hope to be able to solve this using why?'s hints and
>> by doing my own investigations.

That's the issue.

Tried the setup last night, Enabling the 2nd nic on WIn XP SP2 (other PC
is CentOS 5) Win defaulted the gw to 10.1.1.1 the 10/100 nic and cut off
internet access.

Network connections, Disable 2nd nic, def gw jumped back to 192.168.x.x
and internet back. Reenable 2nd nic and gw didn't change. Will have to
see why it changed / didn't change by doing the samething.

>>
>And if you had installed a cheap 1Gb switch it would have just worked.
>That said if your time is cheap/valuless then there is no harm
>tinkering. I deal with business networks, tinkering and experimenting on
>live systems is not a option. Proven, reliable methods are generally

Like Tue night for me a simple 2 hr job (with backout time), adding 2
VLANS, modifying ospf table and testing, on a Cisco 6504E. It went
wrong. A previous VLAN mask was setup wrong so it overlapped the new
vlan. Ok simple enough but it's an unauthorised change, not on the job
sheet. Then removing ospf table, modify it and paste back. Lines for
several networks went missing between copy (new config) to paste into
router. I even managed to cut off my access to some degree, the link
between buildings. So was another few hours comparing the backup configs
to running on 2 primary core switches, and putting ospf table back 2
lines at a time.

>preferred and prove cheaper in the long run.
>
>Have fun.



Me

why? wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:19:20 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>
>> pawihte wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>> why? wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:56:33 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>> Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing
>>>> the
>>>> switch
>>>> with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can
>>>> create,
>>>> manage
>>>> and troubleshoot quite easily.
>>>
>>> Despite your sarcastic reply, what why? said is not all that
>>> difficult to grasp. No one is born an expert in anything and
>>> most
>
> It's not that simple either, it's after a lot of experience
> work and
> self taught and testing.
>
Boy, do I know that. When I started teaching myself, the internet
did not exist for the average person. Good books were hard to
come by and I could not afford to buy all the instruments and
materials that I needed. But that also made me put every scrap of
information and material I could get to good use. Lacking
adequate access to good books, I developed some formulas and
processes of my own which I later taught to engineering and
science graduates. I even solved problems in my dreams.

>
>>> I have tried out part of my scheme with the four computers I
>>> have
>>> at home and have no problem connecting two computers at the
>>> same
>>> time at 100 Mbps and 1 Gb/s. Copying large files chosen at
>>> random
>>> to and from undefragged drives, I get average transfer speeds
>>> of
>>> 38-47 MB/s with the Gb LAN and about 8.5 MB/s without.
>>> However,
>>> *sometimes* the two Gb computers have trouble seeing the
>>> other
>>> two and connecting to the internet while both connections are
>>> enabled. I hope to be able to solve this using why?'s hints
>>> and
>>> by doing my own investigations.
>
> That's the issue.
>
> Tried the setup last night, Enabling the 2nd nic on WIn XP SP2
> (other
> PC is CentOS 5) Win defaulted the gw to 10.1.1.1 the 10/100 nic
> and
> cut off internet access.
>
> Network connections, Disable 2nd nic, def gw jumped back to
> 192.168.x.x and internet back. Reenable 2nd nic and gw didn't
> change.
> Will have to see why it changed / didn't change by doing the
> samething.
>
That's what I intend to investigate next. I don't pretend to be a
computer expert, but I'm going to have a go anyway. I think it
has something to do with the order in which the connections are
enabled and disabled.

>>
>> Have fun.
>
>
>
It *is* fun.

pawihte wrote:
> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>> Of course silly me. Much easier and simpler than replacing
>>>> the
>>>> switch
>>>> with a 1Gb one and something the inexperienced user can
>>>> create,
>>>> manage
>>>> and troubleshoot quite easily.
>>> Despite your sarcastic reply, what why? said is not all that
>>> difficult to grasp. No one is born an expert in anything and
>>> most
>>> people are quite capable of expanding their knowledge,
>>> especially
>>> with some helpful hints. And many of us enjoy the learning
>>> process instead of choosing the easiest path.
>> Couldn't agree more. Although monkey see, monkey do doesn't
>> always
>> teach you anything.
>
> You should talk. By your own admission, you choose to follow what
> others have established.
>
>>> I taught myself my
>>> current profession completely unaided and was chosen to
>>> receive
>>> one of the nation's highest awards for pioneering work in
>>> science
>>> and technology. (I declined for ethical reasons).
>> Good for you. I chose to go down a certified instructor lead
>> path
>> coupled with real world experience.
>>
> Good for *you*. Just don't expect everyone to follow the same
> path. I was plotting the course of the Apollo moon shots with an
> IBM mainframe and punch cards in the sixties as a college project
> at the age of 16. I just chose something other than becoming a
> computer geek.
>>> I have tried out part of my scheme with the four computers I
>>> have
>>> at home and have no problem connecting two computers at the
>>> same
>>> time at 100 Mbps and 1 Gb/s. Copying large files chosen at
>>> random
>>> to and from undefragged drives, I get average transfer speeds
>>> of
>>> 38-47 MB/s with the Gb LAN and about 8.5 MB/s without.
>>> However,
>>> *sometimes* the two Gb computers have trouble seeing the other
>>> two and connecting to the internet while both connections are
>>> enabled. I hope to be able to solve this using why?'s hints
>>> and
>>> by doing my own investigations.
>>>
>>>
>> And if you had installed a cheap 1Gb switch it would have just
>> worked.
>
> I knew that and you don't have to repeat yourself. Not everyone
> enjoys always doing things the same way all the time. There's
> this thing called the satisfaction of finding alternative routes.
>
>> That said if your time is cheap/valuless then there is no harm
>> tinkering. I deal with business networks, tinkering and
>> experimenting
>> on live systems is not a option. Proven, reliable methods are
>> generally preferred and prove cheaper in the long run.
>>
> For the kind of work you do and the way you work, probably. But
> not for everyone. My time is as valuable as any successful
> professional's. If yours is so much more valuable, why are you
> wasting it on Usenet, typing sarcastic remarks and cryptic
> "answers" that no one asked for? Me, I don't consider spare time
> spent finding out alternative solutions wasted.
>
> Oh yes, I also often do things the "proven, reliable" way over a
> 40-year career, but seldom without asking myself if there's at
> least a slightly better way - and there usually is.

Trust me, the better way for your configuration is to use one single 1Gb
switch. You are of course free to ignore my advice and carry on arguing
the case. I don't have the time you appear to have to spare so enjoy...


> Maybe that's
> why every single company engineer I've met has asked to work for
> me, even at reduced pay.

ROFL!!!

Desk Rabbit wrote:
....
>
> Trust me, the better way for your configuration is to use one single 1Gb
> switch. You are of course free to ignore my advice and carry on arguing
> the case. ...

I agree.