Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed
From: Harish Sabnani (harish.sabnani_at_cyberhutoman.com)
Date: 09/30/03
- Previous message: Harish Sabnani: "Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed"
- In reply to: Otto Haliburton: "RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed"
- Next in thread: Harish Sabnani: "Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: <redhat-list@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:19:13 +0530
Hi
Well Bjorn is talking about 50 Computers,which is as well as 50 Users at any point of time, as this is an Internet cafe.
Harish
----- Original Message -----
From: Otto Haliburton
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed
In all Bjorn is probably correct depending on the traffic, but I think he is describing 50 users and not 50 computers, because the problem occurs with the amount of traffic on the network, that is when the collisions will occur.
-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Enroth Björn
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:30 AM
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Subject: RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed
Harish,
The Linux box is absolutely able to handle 50 clients. In fact it would have to any way with the second option. I also saw someone pointing out collisions. If a switch is used instead of a hub, there are no collisions at all.
You could group your internal users and hide them behind different external addresses. But again - Don't complicate things when you don't need to. The amount of simultaneous sessions is more than enough if you hide them all behind one address.
Regards
/Bjorn
-----Original Message-----
From: Harish Sabnani [mailto:harish.sabnani@cyberhutoman.com]
Sent: den 30 september 2003 10:34
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for ar advice,but you think that it will be able to handle all the requests from 50 odd terminals effictively? Also any suggestion on the additional Host IPs that I have been given by the ISP?
Thanks
Harish
----- Original Message -----
From: Otto Haliburton
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:44 AM
Subject: RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed
Remember that Ethernet is a collision based system i.e. the more collisions the less performance. Hence large networks are typically have low performance because of the greater number of collisions. So option 2 would give you better performance because it is broken up into smaller areas hence fewer collisions, also there are fewer route table updates. So while the second is more complicated it is actually a better setup. Token ring would be better for your option 1. That's my 0.02 cents.
-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Enroth Björn
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:47 PM
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Subject: SV: Network Setup Opinion Needed
Hi,
Why complicate things when not needed? The only thing you can gain from separating the clients is less broadcast, and maybe some increased security between the groups of clients. The Linux box would also have more to do in your second option. My suggestion is that you go for option 1. Remember to NOT set any default gw at the internal interface. This could confuse the routing daemon.
Regards
/Bjorn
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Harish Sabnani [mailto:harish.sabnani@cyberhutoman.com]
Skickat: den 29 september 2003 19:45
Till: edward@tripled.iinet.net.au
Kopia: redhat-list@redhat.com
Ämne: Network Setup Opinion Needed
Hi Ed,
Thank you for taking interest in my queries,I need a suggestion from you on the way I should set up my network,I had posted this mssg on the mailing list but had no response,hence I am mailing this to you,your suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Hi All,
I have set up a Linux Box with NAT/MASQ, and Squid as an Internet server for my local LAN with one system on a trial basis and I see that the performance has been great.However I am apprehensive about the way the way traffice and loadbalancing will be hadled by Linux box as there will be 50 Machines banging in with requests,hence I have thought of two ways to connect,pls have alook below and pass your valuable comments. I have a 128 Kbps leased line coming thru a router.
Option1
50 Windows Cleints with IP Adressese 192.168.0.1-50 GW 192.168.0.100
Linux Server Eth0 with Ip Adress 212.72.11.89 GW 212.72.11.201
Linux server Eth1 with Ip Address 192.168.0.100 GW 192.168.0.100
so I will use Ip NAT/MASQ techniques where all requests on Eth1 will be forwarded to Eth0.
Option 2
3 Sepearte Networks
Network 1 Ip addresses 192.168.0.1-15
Network 2 Ip addresses 192.168.1.1-15
Network 3 Ipaddresses 192.168.2.1-20
Linux Server Eth0 with Ipaddress 212.72.11.89 GW 212.72.11.201
Linux Server Eth1 with Ipaddress 192.168.0.254 GW 212.72.11.89
Eth2 with Ipaddress 192.168.1.254 GW 212.72.11.89
Eth3 with Ipaddress 192.168.2.254 GW 212.72.11.89
In this case I will have to NAT all requests from Eth1,Eth2,Eth3 to Eth0.
Router Details
Serial IP 212.72.11.202 Mask 255.255.255.252
Network 212.72.11.88 Mask 255.255.255.248
Gatway 212.72.11.201
Host Ips 212.72.11.89
212.72.11.90
212.72.11.91
212.72.11.92
212.72.11.93
212.72.11.94
212.72.11.95
I have abt 6 dedicated host Ips is there a better way I can utilise this,Pls suggest, I dont want to have a dedicated FTP or webserver.
Thanks and regards
Harish
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Previous message: Harish Sabnani: "Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed"
- In reply to: Otto Haliburton: "RE: Network Setup Opinion Needed"
- Next in thread: Harish Sabnani: "Re: Network Setup Opinion Needed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
