C-D-A, yep yep.

--
Espi



On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I do remember reading a long time ago that traffic shouldn't go
> through more than three switches on a LAN (was that referred to as the
> diameter? I can't remember) - that pretty much matches the Cisco model
> of core, distribution and access, as described here, among many other
> places:
> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/tip/Core-Distribution-and-Access
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr
> <michealespin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally speaking, I try to stick to it as well.  I've noticed more
> wonky
> > things the more environments diverge from it.  Technically speaking, that
> > should not make sense - but this an unqualified opinion of mine.
> >
> > --
> > Espi
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Michael B. Smith <
> mich...@smithcons.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I still use it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Violate the rule at your peril. :P
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com
> >> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Link
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 2:07 PM
> >>
> >>
> >> To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
> >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Semi-OT: Network problem
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is this the equivalent of Vader saying "Your powers are weak, old man"
> to
> >> Obi Wan?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sigh. Yes, but...
> >>
> >> "The 5-4-3 rule was created when 10BASE5 and 10BASE2 were the only
> >> types of Ethernet network available. The rule only applies to
> >> shared-access 10 Mbit/s Ethernet backbones. The rule does not apply to
> >> switched Ethernet because each port on a switch constitutes a separate
> >> collision domain."
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> Kurt
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Michael B. Smith
> >> <mich...@smithcons.com> wrote:
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-4-3_rule
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com
> >> > [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff
> >>
> >> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:59 PM
> >> > To: NTSysADM@lists.myitforum.com
> >> > Subject: [NTSysADM] Semi-OT: Network problem
> >> >
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > In the past couple of weeks, $work has had a problem with network
> >> > interruptions - frequent gaps in network connectivity were all
> contact is
> >> > lost with servers for brief periods of time (1-2 minutes, usually).
> >> >
> >> > I could see the gaps in the graphs on my (very new and incomplete -
> long
> >> > story, don't ask) cacti installation. Unfortunately, I've been unable
> to get
> >> > cacti to graph CPU utilization for the switches, because they're
> Procurves,
> >> > and I couldn't find a working XML file or configuration for that.
> >> >
> >> > It's always happened while I've been unavailable, until today.
> >> >
> >> > Just now, I was able to show conclusively that our core layer3 switch
> >> > (Procurve 3400cl-48G), which was hit hardest, spikes its CPU to 99%
> during
> >> > these episodes. Volume of traffic is normal - ho huge spikes in that,
> just
> >> > normal variation, AFAICT, from the cacti graphs. I haven't had time
> to see
> >> > if other switches also spike their CPU, but given the gaps in the
> graphs, I
> >> > suspect that's the case.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect someone is doing something stupid to create layer2 loop, as
> we
> >> > have lots of little 5 and 8 port switches on desktops and in our
> engineering
> >> > lab - and in spite of the fact that I've set our core switch as the
> root of
> >> > the spanning tree.
> >> >
> >> > I'm setting up a box to do a tcpdump in a ring buffer with smallish
> >> > files so that I can do analysis on them more easily.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not a packet analysis guy, though I've done some looking on
> >> > occasion.
> >> >
> >> > Anyone have thoughts on what to look for when I start my analysis?
> >> >
> >> > Kurt
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to