Yup. Already in the budget. And with 2012's dead simple NIC teaming, there's really simple redundancy built in as well.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]>wrote: > Indeed… I will say tho’, that when going inexpensive with switch gear, it > will be a dark time if there’s ever a knight where a problem rises up and > you can’t manage them remotely.**** > > ** ** > > Maybe worth it to have a spare in case of problems?**** > > ** ** > > -sc**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Stovall > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 2:12 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] 10Gb Ethernet**** > > ** ** > > It doesn't suck, that's for sure.[1]**** > > ** ** > > [1] Unlike the terrible movie I watched last night...**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Cool… getting 10Gb ports for that cost is great…**** > > **** > > -sc**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Stovall > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 10:10 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] 10Gb Ethernet**** > > **** > > Because of our tiny size, we went with the inexpensive (~$900) Netgear > XS708E. (There are just three servers connected via 10Gb.)**** > > **** > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > BluRay .iso’s are good tests. J**** > > **** > > **** > > What switches are you using?**** > > **** > > -sc**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Stovall > *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2013 8:43 PM**** > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] 10Gb Ethernet**** > > **** > > I'm just beginning to prepare the environment at $Work for the transition > from VMware to Hyper-V. Part of the exercise is implementing 10Gb Ethernet > for the first time.**** > > **** > > I work in the SMB space at a company with an IT staff of two. > Consequently, I don't get too jazzed about much in the way of > infrastructure these days, but I gotta tell ya, it's slicker the greased > owl sh** to see sustained file transfers on the order of 750MB/sec (without > any network tweaking at all).**** > > **** > > More info. as things progress, but, for today at least, it was was pretty > cool throwing multi-GB files around in mere seconds. (Heck, it was hard > finding something big enough to test with!)**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** >
