Re: switch vs. hub for hobbyist cluster - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: switch vs. hub for hobbyist cluster - VMS ; In article , "Bart.Zorn@gmail.com" writes: > Is it worthwhile to keep the 3000/600 when you have a 1200? I can > imagine that it consumes more power than the 1200, but I am not sure. Substantially more; that's the reason ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: switch vs. hub for hobbyist cluster

  1. Re: switch vs. hub for hobbyist cluster

    In article
    <7a547be2-8437-42ba-955e-9377f0e224d4@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
    "Bart.Zorn@gmail.com" writes:

    > Is it worthwhile to keep the 3000/600 when you have a 1200? I can
    > imagine that it consumes more power than the 1200, but I am not sure.


    Substantially more; that's the reason it is configured as a satellite.

    > I do not think that the 3000/600 does 100 Mb/s, so the speed of the
    > 1200 does not really matter.


    Suppose the 1200 is accessing some web page through the DSL router. I
    was hoping it could get more bandwidth through a switch. (Of course,
    this would be an advantage only if the content weren't buffered to the
    user disk, since this is a shadow set with a member on each of the
    VAXes.)

    > That said, you may still gain something from a switch over the hub,
    > especially when you are doing shadow copy/merge actions.


    Does anyone have a quantitative estimate?

    > Also note that the 1200 is the only one that could potentially use the
    > full speed of your DSL connection, but only if you have a switch.


    Right; see above. Though with a switch, several machines at the same
    time could use more of the DSL bandwidth (one doing email, one an FTP
    transfer, one browsing the web etc).


  2. Re: switch vs. hub for hobbyist cluster

    On Sep 2, 8:28 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
    remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
    > In article
    > <7a547be2-8437-42ba-955e-9377f0e22...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
    >
    > "Bart.Z...@gmail.com" writes:
    > > Is it worthwhile to keep the 3000/600 when you have a 1200? I can
    > > imagine that it consumes more power than the 1200, but I am not sure.

    >
    > Substantially more; that's the reason it is configured as a satellite.
    >
    > > I do not think that the 3000/600 does 100 Mb/s, so the speed of the
    > > 1200 does not really matter.

    >
    > Suppose the 1200 is accessing some web page through the DSL router. I
    > was hoping it could get more bandwidth through a switch. (Of course,
    > this would be an advantage only if the content weren't buffered to the
    > user disk, since this is a shadow set with a member on each of the
    > VAXes.)
    >
    > > That said, you may still gain something from a switch over the hub,
    > > especially when you are doing shadow copy/merge actions.

    >
    > Does anyone have a quantitative estimate?
    >
    > > Also note that the 1200 is the only one that could potentially use the
    > > full speed of your DSL connection, but only if you have a switch.

    >
    > Right; see above. Though with a switch, several machines at the same
    > time could use more of the DSL bandwidth (one doing email, one an FTP
    > transfer, one browsing the web etc).


    Probably too many variables in your picture (unknowns as far as
    readers are concerned) to give any worthwhile quantitative
    guesstimates or even a SWAG, hence the suggestion of buying a cheap
    switch and just trying it. Sounds like you have all the pre-requisites
    (correct cabling etc) so if you can get a switch on sale or return,
    and when you plug it in you see a worthwhile improvement, you keep it,
    else... (in the UK it's apparently called "doing an Argos", but Argos-
    like places may not have the kind of thing you need).

    Incidentally, my earlier mention of Netgear switches managed to
    confuse the Netgear FS508 8port switch (expensive, managed, not one I
    own) with the FS108 (cheaper, unmanaged, I own one). I have also had
    an FS105 too but outgrew it. The FS105 is only 5port, but with the
    possible benefit in your circumstances, and mine at the time, of
    "collision" LEDs per port (not present on the FS108), which can be
    helpful when trying to mix speeds and duplexness (duplicity?).
    Currently they're each around GBP25 at Amazon.co.uk; ymmv. I got
    confused, sorry for any confusion I may have spread (though the basic
    cut-through vs store+forward discussion still applies).

  3. Re: switch vs. hub for hobbyist cluster

    In article ,
    helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to
    reply) wrote:

    > In article
    > <7a547be2-8437-42ba-955e-9377f0e224d4@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
    > "Bart.Zorn@gmail.com" writes:
    >
    > > Is it worthwhile to keep the 3000/600 when you have a 1200? I can
    > > imagine that it consumes more power than the 1200, but I am not sure.

    >
    > Substantially more; that's the reason it is configured as a satellite.
    >
    > > I do not think that the 3000/600 does 100 Mb/s, so the speed of the
    > > 1200 does not really matter.

    >
    > Suppose the 1200 is accessing some web page through the DSL router. I
    > was hoping it could get more bandwidth through a switch. (Of course,
    > this would be an advantage only if the content weren't buffered to the
    > user disk, since this is a shadow set with a member on each of the
    > VAXes.)
    >
    > > That said, you may still gain something from a switch over the hub,
    > > especially when you are doing shadow copy/merge actions.

    >
    > Does anyone have a quantitative estimate?
    >
    > > Also note that the 1200 is the only one that could potentially use the
    > > full speed of your DSL connection, but only if you have a switch.

    >
    > Right; see above. Though with a switch, several machines at the same
    > time could use more of the DSL bandwidth (one doing email, one an FTP
    > transfer, one browsing the web etc).


    FWIW I always suffered from auto-negotiation problems when running my
    Alpha PWS on a hub. Changing to a switch solved those.

    --
    Paul Sture

+ Reply to Thread