[Tfug] Switches -- and hubs!

[erich]

Use switches,
             Hubs are definitely less efficient. I used to have hubs at 
my place, but I've
converted to switches. They run 24/7. One of them produces a faint whine,
but this is tolerable.
             I've tested Skype  at my house. This requires a lot of 
bandwidth but
the system can handle it.
             Rather than tie up the network with transferring large 
files I use
a USB 2.0 drive that I carry around and plug into whatever machine
needs the big files.
             The network can still be used for NATed content. That is , the
local machine has a browser viewing, for example, YouTube, while
the router delivers the data from the service provider.

                                                                                               
Erich


Bexley Hall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to replace most of the specific wiring in the
> house with <everything>_over_IP.  While this has lots of
> wins, it comes at the expense of requiring hub/switch to
> be operational 24/7.
>
> There are *lots* of drops in the house as it has to
> accommodate various things in various places.  E.g., TV
> might want to be in one corner of the room but the *phone*
> will most likely *not* want to be colocated there; instead,
> the phone would tend to be at the other end of the room
> (since you typically *view* the TV from an opposite corner).
>
> I.e., it is *easy* to come up with the need for two drops in
> a given room.
>
> However, it would be silly to connect all of the drops to
> hub/switch "just in case" they might see use.  It makes more
> sense to connect drops as needed (patch panel) so you can
> size the hub/switch to your actual needs instead of your
> *potential* needs!
>
> However, even with this approach, it can also make sense
> to use different switches/hubs for different drops.  E.g.,
> those drops servicing VoIP phones can be handled by a
> 10Mbps *hub* (uses less power than a 10M switch, typically).
>
> OTOH, serving video would probably prefer a 10M switch
> (so you can have several streams active without needlessly
> tying up the hub's bandwidth).
>
> Likewise, connecting workstations might want to exploit a 100M
> switch or faster.
>
> So, it seems to me that the "right" approach is to put some
> combination of switches/hubs by a patch panel and cable them
> to the corresponding drops as needs change.
>
> On a similar note, I keep most of my machines in the office.
> Currently, interconnected with a 100M switch.  This is overkill
> for most of my needs.
>
> OTOH, there are times (tonight being one of them) where I might
> have to move a few hundred Gb between machines.  This is painful.
> Especially since the machines in question have Gb ports!
>
> I've another switch with a pair of Gb ports.  I *think* these
> are intended for uplinks.  But, I *think* I should still be able
> to use them as regular ports?  I.e., the switch should still be
> able to learn the right traffic patterns even though the
> nodes on those ports are "just" workstations.
>
> Can someone confirm this?
>
> Thanks!
> --don
>
>
>       
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>