Upgrading 100mb to 1gig network

TomTom
edited April 2004 in Science & Tech
Currently I am running 9 computers (XP's) on 10/100mb network cards & switch to a single server. I am having a speed problem with a new custom program for our industry. Upon running it on a single computer, it is lightning fast. However running it over the network is extremely slow. We have tested the system and it is running up to speed.

My question is to how best to approach updating this to a 1 gig network. What brands seem to perform best and do I have to change anything with my cabling or connector configurations?

Am I correct in only needing to change out all network cards in the work stations and server along with changing the switch to a 1 gig compatable switch?

Also, I have always heard switches were faster than hubs. Is that true? After reading other feedback, how much of a buffer should I be looking for in a switch?
Thanks...

Comments

  • tophericetopherice Oak Ridge, TN
    edited April 2004
    First off, if the only application that is displaying this kind of latency when accessed across a network, the problem prolly lies in the application, and not the network. Also, remember that when making a network connection that you have to consider the overhead that is added by the connection protocol, TCP, ODBC or any other means that your using to connect via the network.

    Secondly, as far as hubs vs. switches. Hubs are traditionally not intelligent devices and thus for all practictical purposes create what's called a collision domain, unless its a managed or switching hub, then it's pretty much a switch and has the capability to forward packets to the destination address.

    How hubs work:
    When a packet arrives at one port, it is copied to the other ports so that all segments of the LAN can see all packets, this is what causes the collisions.


    How switches work:
    A switch a device that filters and forwards packets between LAN segments. Switches operate at the data link layer (layer 2) and sometimes the network layer (layer 3) of the OSI Reference Model and therefore support any packet protocol. Notice that the description says that switches FILTER and FORWARD, not just forward. Switches filter based the destination or segment address of the packet and do not broadcast to all ports.
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited April 2004
    If you do decide to upgrade to Gb over ethernet you'll also need cat-5e (enhanced) or cat-6 cabling. You'll need to find out what sort of cable was run before because normal cat-5 is not sufficient for running the higher frequency GB over ethernet.

    What sort of switch are you using and what sorta data are you transmitting? Unless its like video data and you're running dumb terminals I can't see how'd you manage to saturate a switch that quickly. There might be an easier upgrade path though, you can get a switch with a single GB ethernet port and run that port to the server as that's the bottleneck. This way you only have to run a single new cable.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited April 2004
    I agree completely with Topherice ... 100mb is a huge amount of bandwidth. I would look at your application as the source of the problem. Going all gig is going to be ravenously expensive and will be totally unnecessary. I have clients that have 20-30 computers on the network, all sharing a single file server with a ton of traffic. They push 400-700mb CD disk images around to 10 duplicators at once and their whole network is 100mb and it works great.
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited April 2004
    Yeah that's my analysis too, i just forgot to say that ;). But if you do for some reason need the Gb then just doing the server is probably the best way to go since there's no need (it seems) for clients to have more bandwidth between them.
  • TheBaronTheBaron Austin, TX
    edited April 2004
    are you sure your network is operating at 100t and not 10t? because these guys are absolutely right (as usual)
  • TomTom
    edited April 2004
    I have a friend who does networking and has been helping me with mine. He has a piece of test equipment that we can check cable connections, transfer rates, etc... According to this instrument, it is transfering at 100mb. When the program was run on an individual machine, it ran fast. I believe we ran the server directly to a single workstation and and it still ran slow even with the switch bypassed. We have since replaced the server as it crashed. Upgrading the server from a 1 gig processor to a 2 gig sped things up noticably but not to where I felt it should be. With all this done, I am assuming it has to be the 100mb limit?

    The program in question is a large database program written in Foxpro for the Temporary Help Industry.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited April 2004
    I am going to maintain that network bandwidth has nothing to do with your problem. Tell us more about the network setup. Do you have a shared folder on the server that has the application (the .exe file) and then you just run the .exe from one of the workstations? Or is there a client application on each workstation that connects to a central database? If so, what database server are you using? SQL Server? Oracle?
Sign In or Register to comment.