*>> That's not business, that's military, and it's a completely different world.*
Right, because there are no commercial scenarios with similar constraints, such as a large manufacturing plant out in the middle of no-where, or a hospital ward where construction cannot be brought in on a whim, or... *ASB *(Find me online via About.Me <http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker/bio>) *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... * On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
