Results 1 to 5 of 5
03-12-2012, 12:05 AM #1New User
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Gigabit to the desktop? What for???
I'm really enjoying your CCNA study guide but I was quite surprised to read your recommendation on page 10 of chapter 1 : "we need at a minimum gigabit to the desktop" and tend not to agree.
I would like to argue that Gigabit to the desktop is basically a waste of money unless the users need to transfer huge files within the network, (which probably accounts for less than 5% of all desktops).
Otherwise the IT budget can be put to a much better use by buying a couple of faster servers (obviously THESE go on GigE), simple updating unmanaged 100Base-T switches to managed switches, adding content filtering to the network or a more reliable mesh wifi, etc.
Would love to hear comments on the subject.
Last edited by andres11; 03-12-2012 at 12:10 AM. Reason: minor edits
03-12-2012, 03:53 AM #2New User
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
A friend of mine told me one time, "It's better to have and not need than to need and not have."
I've also heard, "Faster is better."
And wasn't it Bill Gates that 'reportedly' said, why would anybody need more than 640MB of memory?
My little internal network has gigabit. My justification is.. why not?
Ok, admittedly, there is no business IT network expense to consider in my scheme.
Last edited by bs_kwaj; 03-12-2012 at 03:56 AM.I thought I was wrong once. But, of course, I was wrong.
03-23-2012, 11:12 PM #3
"With the new Windows networking stack and the IPv6 revolution shortly ahead of us, the server and hosts are no longer the bottlenecks of our internetworks. Our routers and switches are!"
This paragraph says, because of IPv6, which the network administrator possibly thinks to immigrate to in the future, routers and switches wouldn't be as fast as they were before using IPv6.
I think bits just matter. An IPv6 address has 128 bits to be transferred, comparing to the older IPv4 32 bits. That's four times more time. Imagine thousands of users with redundant links between switches.
Big Evil, any comments?CCNA
03-24-2012, 06:39 AM #4Moderator
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
06-06-2012, 10:08 AM #5New User
- Join Date
- May 2012
It’s entirely relative to the applications running on your network. Period.
I run about a 200 networking devices and we deployed 3560's in a lot of locations, in the middle of that forklift from Foundry(YUCK!) the cost of the 3560X series switches came down so we started buying those. the X series has gig capable ports, ok good, fine. Now that we have gig in a few places to the desktop no normal user is even coming close to touching it. But they weren’t coming close to filing up a 100meg port either.
That’s how things are right now, sure a network heavy app could walk in the door tomorrow and we would need it. I doubt it but it could happen. Also we are talking "to the desktop" here, the backbone, the distribution, wireless access points, appliances(ip cameras), and all the servers are 1-40gig.
Another thing to consider in my opinion is desktop hardware, how many systems out there have the local bus, hard drives, and application coding to not be the cause of the bottleneck? It would take a pretty beefy desktop system running the right application to saturate a 1gig link for any measureable amount of time. Again, "to the desktop" is the key argument here.
A real world example: We had a department who ran out and bought their own hardware. They spent a crazy amount of money on some "server class desktops" as they called it. Beefy desktops with lots of cpu and memory, some velociraptor hard disks and 2 1gig network ports on the motherboard. They went on and on and on about how they absolutely had to have a 2gig etherchannel to each of these desktops because they were going to crunch tons and tons of data and send it over to another server they bought. We gave in and installed a 3560X, gave them 7 2gig etherchannels, and started monitoring the switch interfaces with solarwinds. 2 Months later they came to us complaining that the network was slow. We found that the links never exceeded 8%, and the bottleneck was actually their hard disks and their single threaded 32bit app. Money wasted.
If you happen to work for a company that will allow you to put in gig everywhere just because you can, more power to you.
my 2 cents
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By jamesk in forum CCENT Chapter 2: Ethernet TechnologiesReplies: 2Last Post: 11-07-2013, 04:31 AM