Equip yourself with better users? Well why we didn't we think of that sooner!? That will solve so many problems!
Thanks Andrew, your insightfulness is outstanding. From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2011 5:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches >>As I stated before, I have lots of experience with folks creating layer 2 >>loops with small unmanaged switches over the past 9+ years at my position. Then (since we're all so full of impractical advice today), you might do well to equip your environment with better users, who don't move around the switches themselves, or otherwise touch the configuration that the admin puts into place. (After all, if the admin is the one putting it into place, he or she can configure the managed switches in the environment to avoid looping, right?) Hey, feel free to do what you want in your environment, whether based on experience or not. But don't be surprised if other people, with their own set of valid experiences, choose to disagree with what you deem to be universal truths. 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 12:49 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have backed up my words with real world examples. As I stated before, I have lots of experience with folks creating layer 2 loops with small unmanaged switches over the past 9+ years at my position. If it costs even one hour of my time tracking these down for each incident (and it's usually more than that), the money spent is well worth it to both me and the business. It happens about twice a year, and sometimes more frequently. At a fully burdened hourly rate of approximately $75.00/hour just for my time, not to mention the time of all of the people affected who can't do their jobs for at least an hour at a time, it is stunningly bad business *NOT* to have pulled sufficient cable and bought sufficient ports to support the requirements of the environment. Kurt On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 07:57, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>Notice that I did say "Required? Sometimes." > And then proceeded to articulate yourself right into a corner. > >>>You and Andrew, however, sometimes over-interpret my words. > Use less words, and use them in the same manner as the rest of the planet, > and you'll find them harder to "over-interpret"[1]. > And back up your words with real-world examples, and others will find more > opportunity for agreement. > > ASB (Find me online via About.Me) > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > > [1] I won't even ask... > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Kurt Buff > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Life *is* usually as cut and dried as I make it out to be. You and >> Andrew, however, sometimes over-interpret my words. >> >> Notice that I did say "Required? Sometimes." >> >> In particular, my time as a sysadmin is almost always worth more than >> the difference between a cheap 5/8 port switch and a couple of ports >> on, and some cabling to reach, a managed switch. >> >> Kurt >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 07:15, Jeff Steward >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > Life is rarely so cut and dried as you make it out to be. As with any >> > decision, there are multiple inputs and risk assessments to be made and >> > sometimes, using an inexpensive unmanaged switch is the right choice. >> > -Jeff Steward >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Kurt Buff >> > <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> > So because someone made a mistake you're condemning using them? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > From: Kurt Buff >> >> >> > [mailto:[email protected]<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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
