Difference bet. 1 switch compared to 2 switches

[ajol]

Do the math. 1Gbps = 10 x 100Mbps. That is only 10 simultaneous connections passing to your single 1Gbps uplink line.
The uplink port is used to connect the switch to the server.

Your math IS SO DEAD wrong...... do you think 100mbps will be used up that easily for one computer.....

you check the specs of switches...... read switching fabric.....


uplink ports in a switch can be USED TO DAISY CHAIN Switches

[cold_fusion]

...... do you 100mbps will be used up that easily for one computer.....

Yes, if you are connecting to a local server (LAN) as I stated on my previous post. The bottleneck will be the network.
You could compare copying a file from a network drive and compare it between 2 local hdd copy.

[franzziss]

unsa naman ni? hehehe, mga experts. la nko idea ani dah

[ajol]

Yes, if you are connecting to a local server (LAN) as I stated on my previous post. The bottleneck will be the network.
You could compare copying a file from a network drive and compare it between 2 local hdd copy.

please do you transfer DVD files every minute in a LAN? so you are just creating your OWN THEORETICAL bottleneck...


WHAT's the TYPICAL USE of a PC in a LAN.... only for TRANSFERRING FILES?

Don't tell me all PC's in a LAN will be MOVING DVD FILES everytime..... in that CASE you should USE FIBER OPTICS.....

[mindz]

I would like to add.

Since you would like to segregate your network, having diffent switches is a good solution.

BUt this is my question does this two network communicates to each other, like sending files in a LAN? If Yes it would be better to have one network or one switch.

To explain to you a bit on the technical side, switches are measured tru backplane speed, this is by forwarding rate, switching capacity/fabric.

If you have a gigabit switch with 35.71mpps and a Fast Ethernet switch (10/100 speed) with the same forwarding rate of 35.71mpps. this switch are basically almost the same. Port speed interface made them diffent.

So check also the capabilities of your switches forwarding rates etc. place the slower switch in your internet network and Faster switch in your LAN, or it depends what is your priority in terms of speed.


Hope this helps.

-SALAMAT-

[cold_fusion]

>>please do you transfer DVD files every minute in a LAN? so you are just creating your OWN THEORETICAL bottleneck...
I just wanted to give you a very typical example for clarity.
Consider this on a typical business environment, if you have a database and a query needs 1 second to retrieve the data for 1 computer. Then at one time 10 PCs are accessing the SQL server. The result will take 10seconds to complete the transactions.

>>..... in that CASE you should USE FIBER OPTICS.....
You could. This will surely solve the problem.

As I posted earlier, it depends on the case, if the LAN needs a high data throughput a big switch is better. But for the OP's case, which is for internet only, 2 daisy-chained switches is good enough.

[ajol]

>>please do you transfer DVD files every minute in a LAN? so you are just creating your OWN THEORETICAL bottleneck...
I just wanted to give you a very typical example for clarity.
Consider this on a typical business environment, if you have a database and a query needs 1 second to retrieve the data for 1 computer. Then at one time 10 PCs are accessing the SQL server. The result will take 10seconds to complete the transactions.

>>..... in that CASE you should USE FIBER OPTICS.....
You could. This will surely solve the problem.

As I posted earlier, it depends on the case, if the LAN needs a high data throughput a big switch is better. But for the OP's case, which is for internet only, 2 daisy-chained switches is good enough.

A database query IS NOT THAT BIG..... I query a database thru my 512kbps internet connection... and its fast already

unless you are MOVING/COPYING THE DATABASE TO EVERY PC in the LAN..... in that case GET FIBER OPTICS

[cold_fusion]

A database query IS NOT THAT BIG..... I query a database thru my 512kbps internet connection... and its fast already

If the query is small and will result only to a few records is fast but not if the result will return hundreds to thousands of records. It can take about 1-2 seconds typically. Having 10 simultaneous requests will increase the lag. Depende na sa usage. I have been developing database systems and within a year the data can reach up to 100,000 records/transactions. Querying up to 1000 records to process is normal and having more than 5 seconds delay is annoying to the user.

[ajol]

If the query is small and will result only to a few records is fast but not if the result will return hundreds to thousands of records. It can take about 1-2 seconds typically. Having 10 simultaneous requests will increase the lag. Depende na sa usage. I have been developing database systems and within a year the data can reach up to 100,000 records/transactions. Querying up to 1000 records to process is normal and having more than 5 seconds delay is annoying to the user.

your code is inefficient.... don't blame it on the switch...

you mean to say if you need 1000 records.... you copy it into the PC's on the LAN.... The SERVER does the work if you want to sort things out or make specific requests.... its not the switch....

everheard of Virtualization?

[ajol]

OVERKILL..... thats the word....