[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Richard Brown wrote:
Hi Gordon 2009/9/14 Gordon Henderson <gordon+dcglug@xxxxxxxxxx>:On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Richard Brown wrote:Can switches be responsible for network bottlenecks please? I understood that some switches can handle only a certain amount of transfer. So if I have 15 computers all using the network at the same time I am concerned that that could cause a bottleneck in the router.Small network switches ought to be fine - so if you have a single 16-port switch it'll be OK. However if you have 4 or 5 small switches changed together then it may well be a bottleneck depending on where you're data is going. What will also be an issue is using a hub rather than a switch. What does your network topology look like? How many switches, how are the connected, etc.Thanks for the reply. The network has a Buffalo NAS box acting as a file server and a Mac Pro serving Sage files and also using vm software to allow remote users to connect to Sage. It also has 10 xp boxes and 1 vista box on the network. Sage is connected to by anything up to 10 users and whilst Sage itself is low in data size the databases that users use through excel and access are huge. (Around 2gb in size). If a user tries a search on something like this the network slows to a halt and users lose connection with Sage. We only have one switch (a Netgear) and use the router to connect the Mac and also the printers.
OK. It's highly unlikely it's the physical network, cabling and switches that is the issue here. One switch is an ideal scenario for you here.
So what you need to identify is what exactly do you/the users mean by "the network".
I'm also concerned that people get disconnected from an application!Places to look - the NAS - I'm presuming it has an "S:" drive for Sage. (or is it the Mac?) Users will access the Sage server which will access the NAS - so that's an obivous bottleneck - however, I have run a sage server with a NAS type file store (Linux running Samba) in a busy 120+ people company with no slow downs. I'd look to putting Sage on a server of it's own if it's not already on one.
I am wondering whether it would be useful to set up a Linux box to monitor network traffic and see if there are any bottlenecks. I am installing server software on the Mac Pro to possibly set up the network differently instead of using workgroup as a network.
You'll not achieve anything with the witch you have unless it's a stupidly expensive one with port-monitoring facilities. Post the model number and I'll check. Even then you'll lose data unless the monitoring port is Gb, as a single 100Mb port won't keep up with the traffic over the other ports.
The block seems to be Sage but I need the arguments clarified before I go back to management on this one.
Get a dedicated server for it.. Gordon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html