[NTLUG:Discuss] Switch Question

[Paul Ingendorf]

I thought most switches now used the more efficient cut through method to
decrease latency in the wire? Oversize and undersized frames being handled
at the endpoints instead of at the switch level.  I would assume for someone
who is even asking these questions that working with fiber might be more
time consuming than what one would generally consider acceptable for such a
project unless it was a hobby.  This is why wireless makes good sense
eliminating a lot of the risks and making the installation bearable.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ntlug.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ntlug.org]On
Behalf Of Bryan J. Smith
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 12:24 PM
To: NTLUG Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] Switch Question

As much as it costs a little extra, fiber just eliminates so many
problems.  Consider 1000Base-SX (multi-mode, cheaper) or 1000Base-LX
(single-mode, more costly, longer).

10/100Base-T is 85m each segment, assuming a repeat (hub).  With a
switch, you can probably go 170m.

1000Base-T[4] is debateable, and there are many constraints.

That was the 10Base rule -- up to 4 hops (3 levels of cascaded hubs).
The 100Base rule is only 1 hop, which means not even 2 levels of
cascaded hubs (because that could mean 2 hops).

Of course this changes with switching.  Because you're no longer
repeating, but typically using a store'n forward.
Always an excellent suggestion.  Never know if you need to augment or
replace.

--
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith at ieee.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.