The problem with answering a question like this is that if you ask twenty
engineers how to do it, you'd get twenty answers. With that in mind, let me
throw you my thoughts on this scenario.
To me, the 1,000-1,500 users connected via 100MB FastEthernet to 2924XLs is
cool. They all get full access to the bandwidth, and they should all be
happy.
Where I start to worry, is the connection between the 2924's and the 5500's.
A single 100MB line is not going to cut it, in my opinion. When ever
possible, use FastEtherChannel between switches. You are going to have a
situation similar to going to work in the morning. You are driving on your
nice zippy 35mph avenue, then it dumps you, and a hundred other work-going
people, onto a 4-lane highway, also posted at 35mph. But its not just your
street, but a hundred other streets as well. Pretty soon, traffic get
congested because you are all heading toward that tower, which also has a
single entrance to it going at 35mph. I think you can see my point -- a
bottleneck is definitely going to form. Model your network after the
Interstate system -- slow avenues filter onto faster highways, which dump
onto even faster Turn Pikes. They do this so they can accommodate more
traffic. A network is very similar in that respect. I like the pipes
between switches to be as fast as possible. Trunking 6 ports to me is well
worth it.
As for the servers, the same scenario applies there as well. You don't want
those to become the bottlenecks either. Intel makes dual ports NICs now,
and a FastEtherChannel compatible driver -- or even better, ANY Intel 8255x
based card with the latest driver can be part of an EtherChannel. Drop two,
or three, or even four into your server and bind them together (I think four
is the most NICs WinNt supports, but I could be wrong). Don't forget about
gig either...
Don't give the users any more reason to complain then they think they
already have!
K
-----
Kristopher B. Climie, CCNP, CCDP
""Hornbeck, Timothy"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What is the best speed at each level to run your network? For example
would
> this configuration cause problems?
>
> 1000 - 1500 Local (30,000+ total) Clients (Windows95 to Catalyst
> 2924) - 100MB/Full (200MB)
> Access level Uplinks to Core (Catalyst 2924 to Catalyst 5500) -
> 100MB/Full (200MB)
> 40 - 50 Local Servers connected to Core (Novell and NT to Catalyst
> 5500) - 100MB/Full (200MB)
>
> Shouldn't the servers have connections faster than the clients? What
could
> be some of the issues from this design?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Timothy J. Hornbeck
>
> **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> _________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
