hire an expert

--
Ole
"Tony Foster" wrote in message
news:voo3mqi4ldr293@corp.supernews.com...
Hi Fellow IT staff
Anyone have any links to resources on Cat5 networks and basic principles?
Want to replace a 24 port hub 10 speed Lan with a switching 10/100 but other
hardware exists like smaller hubs although in a very small plan area. Just a
ten user or so base but with another 4-5 extra machines/servers.

A lot of NICs are 100 capable so should work straight away with 100. I would
have though it would be physically possible to reroute so the extra kit that
is currently in place (one small etherperfect 5 port hub, and another hub on
the ROOF!-why as the 24 port hub is only metres away within the floor space)
might be possible to be made redundant since its likely to be only 10 speed.

However company is moving at some point so little point investing heavily.
Is there any reasoning for having smaller hubs in this environment, or
having a hub on a roof when some pcs could access a faster main hub via just
a couple of metres via skirting etc? It doesnt make sense to me.
Also is Windows 2003 going to be heavily reliant on a 100 speed network, ie
10x was fine for NT but too slow for replication etc on 2003...?

Many Thanks & Warm Regards,
Tony

In news:voo3mqi4ldr293@corp.supernews.com,
Tony Foster typed:
> Hi Fellow IT staff
> Anyone have any links to resources on Cat5 networks and basic
> principles? Want to replace a 24 port hub 10 speed Lan with a
> switching 10/100 but other hardware exists like smaller hubs although
> in a very small plan area. Just a ten user or so base but with
> another 4-5 extra machines/servers.

"Hire an expert"? Sheesh! That's helpful. So how did almost every
expert get that way?

Anyway, you should have a switch in the middle of it all, regardless of
speed. You can have hubs hanging off the lines run from the switch, but
if the center hub is a "hub" then there can be too much latency and
possible data loss. IOW a signal between any two devices should only
pass through two hubs, not three. You can have a hub on every line from
the switch and still meet that requirement. But no, there's no benefit
to using a hub instead of another cable run.

--
-Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
-and remove the obvious-

Very kind of you Tom
Regards,
Tony

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
news:5T%ib.178707$0v4.13735092@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> In news:voo3mqi4ldr293@corp.supernews.com,
> Tony Foster typed:
> > Hi Fellow IT staff
> > Anyone have any links to resources on Cat5 networks and basic
> > principles? Want to replace a 24 port hub 10 speed Lan with a
> > switching 10/100 but other hardware exists like smaller hubs although
> > in a very small plan area. Just a ten user or so base but with
> > another 4-5 extra machines/servers.
>
> "Hire an expert"? Sheesh! That's helpful. So how did almost every
> expert get that way?
>
> Anyway, you should have a switch in the middle of it all, regardless of
> speed. You can have hubs hanging off the lines run from the switch, but
> if the center hub is a "hub" then there can be too much latency and
> possible data loss. IOW a signal between any two devices should only
> pass through two hubs, not three. You can have a hub on every line from
> the switch and still meet that requirement. But no, there's no benefit
> to using a hub instead of another cable run.
>
> --
> -Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
> -and remove the obvious-
>
>

Don't mess around with cheezy 10mb hubs. Get yourself a single 100mbs
switch, preferably with an optional gigabit port for the server to run on
later down the line when it gets more popular. Win2003 doesn't use anymore
overhead then 2000 and should run fine with 100mbs. 10mbs is ol school.
If you need assistance with your migration contach
http://cahanconsulting.com

"Tony Foster" wrote in message
news:voo3mqi4ldr293@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi Fellow IT staff
> Anyone have any links to resources on Cat5 networks and basic principles?
> Want to replace a 24 port hub 10 speed Lan with a switching 10/100 but
other
> hardware exists like smaller hubs although in a very small plan area. Just
a
> ten user or so base but with another 4-5 extra machines/servers.
>
> A lot of NICs are 100 capable so should work straight away with 100. I
would
> have though it would be physically possible to reroute so the extra kit
that
> is currently in place (one small etherperfect 5 port hub, and another hub
on
> the ROOF!-why as the 24 port hub is only metres away within the floor
space)
> might be possible to be made redundant since its likely to be only 10
speed.
>
> However company is moving at some point so little point investing heavily.
> Is there any reasoning for having smaller hubs in this environment, or
> having a hub on a roof when some pcs could access a faster main hub via
just
> a couple of metres via skirting etc? It doesnt make sense to me.
> Also is Windows 2003 going to be heavily reliant on a 100 speed network,
ie
> 10x was fine for NT but too slow for replication etc on 2003...?
>
> Many Thanks & Warm Regards,
> Tony
>
>