On 9/29/2010 4:56 PM, Jefferson Cowart wrote: > On 09/29/2010 11:08 AM, John BORIS wrote: >> hanks as always the list has always proven a great source. > When I'm designing wiring for access layer, I tend to strongly prefer > fewer larger closets over many smaller closets. This provides a few > benefits from my perspective: > > 1. I know which closet a given drop goes to. You don't have to remember > which drops go to which closets. Proper labeling is also important here. > 2. Fewer closets also tends to result in fewer things to manage. Rather > than having to handle configuration on two or three switches, everything > is on one. While some configuration is done on a per-port basis there is > also a bunch that is per-switch. We tend to use stacking switches (Cisco > 3750 line) in our closets, so I'm able to consolidate 9 switches into a > single management point. Minimizing the management points can reduce > operating costs down the road. > > The spec allows for runs of up to 90m from closet to station (this > allows for 5m of patch on each end). Assuming the wiring is properly > installed, the runs will work out to the 100m spec limit. > > The only significant concern I have with larger closets is it tends to > make cable management more difficult. However assuming you are able to > install proper horizontal and vertical management it can be very > manageable. > It's been a while since I've had to do anything much with networks, how does stacking switches relate from an SPOF perspective? I would assume that by reducing the number of cabinets / management points its essentially a trade off for slightly less resiliency (lose one cab, lose more of the building than you might otherwise have done so.) I presume it's generally considered an acceptable gamble?
Paul _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
