On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 09:39, Ben Schorr <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed – we’ve been down that road ourselves a time or two. I’m not sure > you’ve dealt with a difficult infrastructure environment until you’ve had to > provided data and telecom on a battleship (yes, really). Running 200 feet > of cable to the nearest managed switch -- which may involve drilling new > punch-thru holes in steel (and occasionally armored) bulkheads -- in that > environment is not something we undertake lightly (or cheaply).
That's not business, that's military, and it's a completely different world. And, because of that, using unmanaged small switches is even more of a sin there. > On many occasions new offices have been provisioned with inexpensive > temporary switches until we can determine that it’s worth it to us to bring > in something more “heavy-duty”. And you can forget about wireless – even > 802.11N has a range of about 40 feet in that environment. Most of their > users have to walk outside to get a usable signal on their mobile phones. Again, as a temporary measure, I don't have much of a problem with it. The catch is that it really must be *temporary*. All too often they are not, and become embedded in the environment, and forgotten for just long enough to be a big problem, when someone creates that layer 2 loop, or the switch goes beserk. > Ben M. Schorr > Chief Executive Officer > ______________________________________________ > Roland Schorr & Tower > www.rolandschorr.com > [email protected] > > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bschorr > > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rolandschorr > > > > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 08:15 > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches > > > > Given all the constraints you complain about experiencing in your current > place of employment, Kurt, I'm surprised you would suggest that someone else > needing to make do in some fashion, and not having the budget or approval to > run more cable through an old, union run facility, to support the addition > of two people into an office on a temporary basis[1], represents some sort > of gross negligence on the part of the either the admin or management. > > > > Also, just because you have had a bad experience with a technology does not > render it hideously untenable for the rest of the known world. > > > > I envy your Utopian habitat, with neither budgetary nor timing constraints. > > > > ASB (Find me online via About.Me) > > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > > [1] Just to name ONE common issue > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Required? Sometimes. > > More expensive up front? Yes. > > Valid or reasonable? I disagree. > > IMHO, being forced to use these tiny unmanaged switches shows a > decided lack of foresight on someone's part, and a lack of > understanding of their larger costs. > > Unless, perhaps, you're temporizing until a complete wireless solution > is being readied. :) > > Kurt > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 02:59, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> "Install extra cabling" is a solution that has greater expense, and >> requires >> far more permission that "install unmanaged switch" in most circumstances. >> There are plenty of valid scenarios where you will not have the >> opportunity >> to add more network drops to a location, and for which the temporary or >> permanent deployment of unmanaged switches will be entirely reasonable. >> >> ASB (Find me online via About.Me) >> Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... >> >> >> >> > >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:49 PM, James Hill <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm with Kurt. Unmanaged switches are just trouble. Do it properly and >>> install extra cabling. >>> >>> Unmanaged switches have a habit of multiplying. I've been caught out one >>> too many times by a hidden one under a desk somewhere, usually when >>> imaging >>> an entire floor with multicast or something when I don't have the time >>> for >>> trouble. >>> >>> I've even seen one of these switches go nuts and flood a core switch so >>> much it brought the network to its knees. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, 6 February 2011 5:19 AM >>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>> Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches >>> >>> It's not just one mistake. >>> >>> I don't know what it is about my user population, but at least a couple >>> of >>> times a year, and sometimes more often, I have to go chasing down some >>> idiot >>> (usually a software developer or hardware engineer) who has connected a >>> little switch to itself, or to another little switch. >>> >>> I'm really tired of it. >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 05:47, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > So because someone made a mistake you're condemning using them? >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:45 PM >>> > To: NT System Admin Issues >>> > Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches >>> > >>> > Don't. Just don't. >>> > >>> > Pull another run of cable if you have to. >>> > >>> > Desktop switches are just wrong. >>> > >>> > I speak from much experience here. >>> > >>> > >>> > Just last month, we shuffled a bunch of folks around, and the >>> > facilities >>> > guy was moving PCs and printers, and noticed that there was a loose >>> > cable >>> > attached to a 5-port switch. So, not knowing what else to do with it, >>> > he >>> > plugged it into the 5 port switch. Which meant that both ends of the >>> > cable >>> > were in the same dumb, unmanaged, switch. >>> > That's your basic layer2 loop, right there. >>> > >>> > It killed performance for lots of people, until I tracked it down. >>> > >>> > I've had this happen so many times with stupid 5 and 8 port switches >>> > that if I could rip them all out I would do so in less time than it >>> > takes to >>> > write about it. >>> > >>> > But, we now have so many of them, because our wiring is so sparse, that >>> > I can't. Yet. It's a major line item in the IT CAPEX budget for next >>> > year. >>> > >>> > Kurt >>> > >>> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:00, John Aldrich >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> One of my users just claimed an unused laser printer for his office >>> >> (Acct. >>> >> Manager) that has a network port on it as well as the usual USB. He'd >>> >> like to be able to network it so he can print to it from the AS/400. >>> >> What do you guys recommend for a small (4-5 port) network switch? >>> >> To anyone who wants to know, this is for real, looking for >>> >> recommendations for a RIGHT NOW purchase, not "next time." :-) >>> >> >>> >> Thanks! > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
