Multiple switches

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by jas0n, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. jas0n

    jas0n Guest

    We have a site that will have upto 80 or so pc's, all cat5e cabling back
    to 1 rack.

    We usually use 2950 switches, upto 48 ports, never used anything larger
    - it seems inefficient to link two of these via a 1GB port.

    Is there a way to link two or more of these and effectively turn them
    into 1 switch get full bandwidth) or would we be better off speccing a
    much larger switch, ive never seen a 96 port in operation but the site
    is likely to need this many, maybe a few more so trying to work out how
    best to achieve this.

    Although most systems will be new and also have gigabit network cards
    there is no need for gigabit to the desktop, its mostly standard admin
    work with fairly small volume small files.
     
    jas0n, Jun 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jas0n

    jas0n Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > We have a site that will have upto 80 or so pc's, all cat5e cabling back
    > to 1 rack.
    >
    > We usually use 2950 switches, upto 48 ports, never used anything larger
    > - it seems inefficient to link two of these via a 1GB port.
    >
    > Is there a way to link two or more of these and effectively turn them
    > into 1 switch get full bandwidth) or would we be better off speccing a
    > much larger switch, ive never seen a 96 port in operation but the site
    > is likely to need this many, maybe a few more so trying to work out how
    > best to achieve this.
    >
    > Although most systems will be new and also have gigabit network cards
    > there is no need for gigabit to the desktop, its mostly standard admin
    > work with fairly small volume small files.
    >


    Having a look through available cisco switches the Cisco 2980G-A (80
    10/100 ports - 2 flexible gigabit) seems an option.

    Im not so sure what to consider when moving upto this number of systems
    - the servers (likely 2) will be current dual cpu hp dl380's raid, etc
    with gigabit ports so we may get away with this one device ... although
    im in 2 minds if its better to have 2 seperate devices in case 1 fails
    can still have half the network up and running.

    Any comments?
     
    jas0n, Jun 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jas0n wrote:

    >
    > We usually use 2950 switches, upto 48 ports, never used anything larger
    > - it seems inefficient to link two of these via a 1GB port.
    >

    I run 2950s in stacks of 6 without any problems; uplink to my core is
    1 GB via fiber and I use gigastacks between the switches themselves.
    (looped gigastacks run in half duplex) 4000 active ports on the network.
    >
    > Although most systems will be new and also have gigabit network cards
    > there is no need for gigabit to the desktop, its mostly standard admin
    > work with fairly small volume small files.

    What does your traffic look like? Users to a few servers, users to WAN
    (internet or private net), users to users? From your description it
    does not look like the gig uplinks would be a problem.

    crt
     
    Claude R Trepanier, Jun 20, 2006
    #3
  4. jas0n

    J Guest

    jas0n wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > We have a site that will have upto 80 or so pc's, all cat5e cabling back
    > > to 1 rack.
    > >
    > > We usually use 2950 switches, upto 48 ports, never used anything larger
    > > - it seems inefficient to link two of these via a 1GB port.
    > >
    > > Is there a way to link two or more of these and effectively turn them
    > > into 1 switch get full bandwidth) or would we be better off speccing a
    > > much larger switch, ive never seen a 96 port in operation but the site
    > > is likely to need this many, maybe a few more so trying to work out how
    > > best to achieve this.
    > >
    > > Although most systems will be new and also have gigabit network cards
    > > there is no need for gigabit to the desktop, its mostly standard admin
    > > work with fairly small volume small files.
    > >

    >
    > Having a look through available cisco switches the Cisco 2980G-A (80
    > 10/100 ports - 2 flexible gigabit) seems an option.
    >
    > Im not so sure what to consider when moving upto this number of systems
    > - the servers (likely 2) will be current dual cpu hp dl380's raid, etc
    > with gigabit ports so we may get away with this one device ... although
    > im in 2 minds if its better to have 2 seperate devices in case 1 fails
    > can still have half the network up and running.
    >
    > Any comments?


    How is your network utilized? Are you planning on replicating all of
    your internal services onto both switches? Ie, domain controllers, DNS
    server, NTP server, file servers, SANs, etc? Are you going to provide
    2 separate connections from you Internet router(s) and router
    terminating WAN links back to both core switches? If not then 2
    separate switches really doesn't gain you anything other than added
    expense and admin overhead.

    Has does your network look from a layer-3 perspective? Do you have
    more than one VLAN? If so are you employing the router on a stick
    methodology to provide L3 between VLANs?

    The most important question of all is do you see your company employing
    the use of VoIP sometime in the next 4 years? If so then you need to
    seriously consider buying PoE switches. You will also have to
    segregate voice and data traffic. A purely L2 core may cause you
    problems here. You may want to consider the purchase of a larger
    chassis (4500) with a higher end Supervisor module to do L3 in the
    core.

    There are lots of things to consider beyond the number of ports. I'd
    recommend calling a local Cisco shop for a network survey. Most will
    do this for you for free or a discounted rate to seek out job
    opportunities. Take their input and then begin evaluating your
    company's position.

    J
     
    J, Jun 20, 2006
    #4
  5. jas0n

    stephen Guest

    "Claude R Trepanier" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:44995472$...
    > jas0n wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > We usually use 2950 switches, upto 48 ports, never used anything larger
    > > - it seems inefficient to link two of these via a 1GB port.
    > >

    > I run 2950s in stacks of 6 without any problems; uplink to my core is
    > 1 GB via fiber and I use gigastacks between the switches themselves.
    > (looped gigastacks run in half duplex) 4000 active ports on the network.


    if you need more bandwidth between the switches then Cat 3750s are designed
    for resilient high speed stacking.

    They have more features and are more expensive, but should be similar to the
    2950s you are used to.
    > >
    > > Although most systems will be new and also have gigabit network cards
    > > there is no need for gigabit to the desktop, its mostly standard admin
    > > work with fairly small volume small files.

    > What does your traffic look like? Users to a few servers, users to WAN
    > (internet or private net), users to users? From your description it
    > does not look like the gig uplinks would be a problem.
    >
    > crt

    --
    Regards

    - replace xyz with ntl
     
    stephen, Jun 20, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. avraham shir-el
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    8,576
    avraham shir-el
    Jul 20, 2004
  2. mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    697
  3. Gary
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    864
    donjohnston
    Dec 30, 2008
  5. Greg
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,831
    Sarcasmus
    Jul 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page