If you go with the Procurves make sure they do have QOS and have enough (whats the word).... internal bandwidth to handle a lot of traffic. I got a lower end one that did not have the proper backend and it was a nightmare trying to find the problem. I finally just changed out the Procurve with an older Cisco (I had done everything else at that point) and the light went on an most of the issues went away. I was never able to get the correct switch purchased that would solve the problems in full but at least it was better.
Jon On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Phillip Partipilo <[email protected]> wrote: > Many modern systems have dual NICs. Could you connect your PC direct into > the gig, and bridge the two NICs within Windows, then connect the VoIP > phone > to the computer's NIC. (many modern onboard NICs are even auto-mdi/x so > you > don't even need a crossover) > > > Phillip Partipilo > Parametric Solutions Inc. > Jupiter, Florida > (561) 747-6107 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tony patton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:00 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Fw: Managed Switches... > > > > Yep, I mean 100Mbps to the desktop via the phone. > If I disconnect the phone and connect the cable directly to the desktop, I > get 1Gbps > > Regards > > Tony Patton > Desktop Operations Cavan > Ext 8078 > Direct Dial 049 435 2878 > email: [email protected] > > > > From: > [email protected] > To: > "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> > Date: > 26/01/2010 16:50 > Subject: > Fw: Managed Switches... > > > > > Why is 100 Mbps for a VoIP phone an issue? That is the VoIP standard... > OR, are you saying the throughput to you your workstation gets throttled > to 100 Mbps as well? I can see how that would be annoying. > > With our system, to get the full funtionality and management of our > workstations (our VoIP phones), it is necessary to connect a PC > "downstream" from the IP phone (SIP address, etc). In other words, we do > not have the option of having PCs and phones on separate wires. > > Anyway, if this throttling to 100 Mbps is typical for all VoIP systems > (our phones are Polycom 430s), then I might have a good answer for our > development folks who complain about slow throughput to and from their > servers. > > Something intersting to look into some day soon... > -- > Richard D. McClary > Systems Administrator, Information Technology Group > ASPCAR > > ----- Forwarded by Richard McClary/MWRO/Aspca on 01/26/2010 10:42 AM ----- > > > tony patton <[email protected]> wrote on 01/26/2010 10:35:48 > AM: > > > we have ~2600 phones/desktops all on the same cables, different vlans > for > > voice & data, qos > > > > The only issue I have is that the phones we have (Nortel CS1000) are > only > > 100mbit, if I bypass the phone i have a gig. > > > > Regards > > > > Tony Patton > > Desktop Operations Cavan > > Ext 8078 > > Direct Dial 049 435 2878 > > email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > From: > > "Glen Johnson" <[email protected]> > > To: > > "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> > > Date: > > 26/01/2010 16:28 > > Subject: > > RE: Managed Switches... > > > > > > > > Well I know we are doing both on one wire and no issues. > > We do use separate vlans for voice versus data. > > QOS is configured also, > > We run our IP camera system on the same network also, I see constant > > 45mbit traffic to the server doing the camera recording. > > We also use Altiris to image up to 25 workstations at the same time and > > I?ve yet to have any issues with voice call quality. > > We have about 175 voip phones so I for one think this recommendation is > at > > least inefficient. Would require double the switch ports and wiring. > > At the risk of offending, sounds like something isn?t configured > properly > > if you need two separate wires, just to support VOIP. > > I also know of several colleges much larger than us that are doing the > > exact same thing and having great success. > > In fact, I just came from a video conference where one of the techs said > > > they had just deployed 500+ voip phones and related pcs and > infrastructure > > and it is working great. > > > > > > From: Philip Brothwell [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 5:28 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Managed Switches... > > > > +1 > > > > Whenever possible you should run VoIP on separate wiring. The > networking > > requirements for VoIP are very different than the requirements for most > > data networks. VoIP cares about jitter and latency, data networks care > > about speed. The typical VoIP call uses less than 1Kbps of bandwidth but > > > it wants that bandwidth NOW. Yes, you can (and should) use QoS and > VLANS > > to help with VoIP but if your network is heavily utilised you will still > > > have issues. And since the bandwidth requirement for VoIP is low you > can > > in many cases reuse the existing PBX wiring for VoIP. I have actually > > seen enterprise-level VoIP run over CAT 3 cable. (Something I do not > > recommend other than as a stop-gap.) > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > > You can do this with QoS, and I've seen nothing to indicate that HP is > > anything less than stellar in this regard. But if memory serves (it's > > been a few years) switches with QoS cost a bit more. Perhaps that's no > > longer true. > > > > At the very least, it simplifies configuration and troubleshooting. > > > > Also, I don't know what the cost of phones would be for this system, > > but cost of switches is not that much, and cost of cabling is > > ~&75.00/drop, depending on location. > > > > OP didn't specify, but I find the use of phones as two-port switches > > to which the workstations are appended to be yucky, and fraught with > > problems - might as well run the cable separately, because QoS doesn't > > do much for you in those situations. > > > > At the very least, he should consider separate VLANs for VoIP vs. > > everything else, along with QoS. > > > > Kurt > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 13:27, Brian Desmond <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Why? You might as well just buy a new PBX or upgrade the existing one > > and run it on the existing infrastructure if you're going to do that. > > Doesn't get you any cost savings... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Brian Desmond > > > [email protected] > > > > > > c ? 312.731.3132 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:16 PM > > >> To: NT System Admin Issues > > >> Subject: Re: Managed Switches... > > >> > > >> +1 on the HP switches. > > >> > > >> Further recommendation (which I know won't fly, but I'll make it > > >> anyway): Pull the cable needed to keep VoIP separate from everything > > else, > > >> and get VoIP its own infrastructure. > > >> > > >> Kurt > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:05, Reimer, Mark <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > Hi folks, > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I need some opinions. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Up until now (don?t laugh), we have been using unmanaged switches, > > and > > >> > it?s been working. But we hope to implement a VOIP system (probably > > >> > based on Asterix software), and there are other factors (VLAN?s for > > >> > one) that will require us to install managed switches. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I know Cisco is the cream of the crop, and the most expensive. I?ve > > >> > heard that HP is quite good as well. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > So, without starting too many flame wars, can people make a > > >> > recommendation, (or a ?unrecommendation?)? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > This would be for one physical location, looking at 150-200 drops > > >> > scattered throughout campus (we are an educational institution). We > > >> > are planning to use the current Ethernet wiring (CAT 5 or better in > > >> > all places), with the phone and computer using the same physical > > wire. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks in advance. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Mark Reimer, A+, MCSA > > >> > > > >> > Windows Servers & Networking > > >> > > > >> > Prairie Bible Institute > > >> > > > >> > Box 4000 > > >> > > > >> > Three Hills, AB T0M-2N0 > > >> > > > >> > Canada > > >> > > > >> > Tel: 403-443-5511, Ext. 3476 > > >> > > > >> > Fax: 403-443-5540 > > >> > > > >> > Email: [email protected] > > >> > > > >> > www.prairie.edu > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > >> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > >> > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > > > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==================================================================== > > http://www.quinn-insurance.com > > > > This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents > > should not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or > > opinions expressed are solely those of the sender and > > do not necessarily represent those of QUINN-Insurance, unless otherwise > > specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure, > > QUINN-Insurance is not responsible for the contents of this message nor > > responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the > > original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and > > outbound e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before > > opening any attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage > sustained > > as a result of any software viruses. > > > > ==================================================================== > > > > QUINN-Life Direct Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator. > > QUINN-Insurance Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator and > > regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK > > business. > > > > ==================================================================== > > > > QUINN-Life Direct Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number > > 292374 and is a private company limited by shares. > > QUINN-Insurance Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number > > 240768 and is a private company limited by shares. > > Both companies have their head office at Dublin Road, Cavan, Co. Cavan. > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > ==================================================================== > http://www.quinn-insurance.com > > This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents > should not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or > opinions expressed are solely those of the sender and > do not necessarily represent those of QUINN-Insurance, unless otherwise > specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure, > QUINN-Insurance is not responsible for the contents of this message nor > responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the > original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and > outbound e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before > opening any attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained > as a result of any software viruses. > > ==================================================================== > > QUINN-Life Direct Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator. > QUINN-Insurance Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator and > regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK > business. > > ==================================================================== > > QUINN-Life Direct Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number > 292374 and is a private company limited by shares. > QUINN-Insurance Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number > 240768 and is a private company limited by shares. > Both companies have their head office at Dublin Road, Cavan, Co. Cavan. > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > -- > If this email is spam, report it here: > > http://www.onlymyemail.com/view/?action=reportSpam&Id=ODEzNjQ6MTAzNzE3MzM0NT > pwanBAcHNuZXQuY29t > > > THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL > AND PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION IS > INTENDED FOR USE BY THE ADDRESSEE ONLY. ANY OTHER INTERCEPTION, > COPYING, ACCESSING, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED. > IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY > NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS MAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS. DO NOT > FORWARD THIS MESSAGE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE SENDER. > > > > THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL > AND PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION IS > INTENDED FOR USE BY THE ADDRESSEE ONLY. ANY OTHER INTERCEPTION, > COPYING, ACCESSING, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED. > IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY > NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS MAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS. DO NOT > FORWARD THIS MESSAGE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE SENDER. > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
