LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking
User Name
Password
Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-20-2011, 10:57 PM   #1
kitek
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 252

Rep: Reputation: 15
10/100 switch vs 1000 switch


I want to understand this correctly. If I have a network all computers use 100m cards. But the switch 100. if between all the pc's more than 100m traffic is going on, will it slow the network down or is that what the 1000gig switch help. allows total speed through the switch to run up to 1000 traffic?
 
Old 07-21-2011, 12:32 AM   #2
Nominal Animal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2010
Location: Finland
Distribution: Xubuntu, CentOS, LFS
Posts: 1,723
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 942Reputation: 942Reputation: 942Reputation: 942Reputation: 942Reputation: 942Reputation: 942Reputation: 942
Since any single connection on your network can carry up to 100 Mbit/s, the most used connection -- usually between the switch and the local server, proxy, router, or upstream switch -- will be the bottleneck. If you have ten computers all using the same connection, even for a small part of the way, they will share the 100 Mbit/s bandwidth.

In theory, if your computers communicate paired, each computer should be able to send and receive 100 Mbit/s (at the same time if using full duplex). The amount of data flowing over the switch would be 200 Mbit/s the number of computers. (For a 10/100/1000 switch, substitute 1000 Mbit/s and 2000 Mbit/s, respectively.)

In practice, switches are limited either by a maximum bandwidth, or by the total number of packets it can transmit per second, whichever is reached first. One example of this is that when using small packets, you can achieve only a small fraction of the theoretical bandwidth -- although most of that is because sending millions of packets per second is a huge task for a CPU and an operating system.

Most small (up to eight ports) switches use common dedicated chips to do this, and typically should be able to reach near theoretical bandwidth limits with fairly small packets. Switches that have more ports, need comparably faster backplanes, higher bandwidth limits and packets per second. For rack-mounted switches, the manufacturers seems to document the switch limits pretty accurately, but you may need to read the manuals very carefully to parse them; the wording may be convoluted. (Pay attention to the packet size used for bandwidth or packets-per-second limits. Sometimes the size is unrealistic, so the values cannot be directly compared across manufacturers.)

In summary, just changing the switch will probably not help. However, if you change both the switch, and the NICs on the most used connection(s) -- to the server, or proxy, or upstream --, you likely will see an improvement. This obviously depends on your network topology and traffic patterns, so there is no guarantee of an improvement.

In an office-like environment with up to a dozen or two computers, I'd much prefer GbE (1000 Mbit/s) NICs and switches and Cat6 cables -- Cat6a, if the price difference is less than 10%. While Cat5 is usually OK for GbE, Cat6 has much better shielding, and should be compatible with 10GBase-T, if affordable 10GbE NICs become available at some point. In electrically noisy environments, for example with power tools or large transformers nearby, I prefer shielded cables: FTP, FFTP, S-FTP, or STP (as opposed to normal UTP). If you can see a lot of packet errors, you might benefit from shielded cables; if you have none or just few packet errors, there is no need for the extra shielding.

Hope this helps.
 
Old 07-21-2011, 02:52 PM   #3
jefro
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,714

Rep: Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439Reputation: 1439
We have set some slower systems to only be on 100m since there is too much un-needed chatter and cpu time devoted to it. A gig network doesn't mean faster in all cases.

I agree that I'd doubt a gig switch would help unless you have a very cheap switch. You can only compare cheap to cheap or good to good also. A cheap switch is way different than an enterprise level switch in features and speeds and some settings that could be used to speed up data. Some switches claim wire speed. Switches in general take time to transfer packets.
 
Old 07-21-2011, 04:30 PM   #4
kitek
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 252

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Well. I have 2 Lynksys 24 port rack mounted ones a SR22 the other is new so I guess I'm okay ATM?
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gigabit Switch and 100 Mbit peripherals lucazorzi Linux - Networking 3 01-30-2009 03:12 PM
10/100 Mbps Hub/Switch Question WeNdeL Linux - Networking 4 01-13-2004 02:52 PM
10/100 switch wont work. bruce1271 Linux - Networking 8 06-05-2003 09:43 AM
Utilization of a 100 MB switch... WeNdeL Linux - Networking 3 02-11-2003 09:47 AM
100 Mbs switch. Don't understand! drjimstuckinwin Linux - Networking 2 12-14-2001 03:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration