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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Enroth Björn
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003
9:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 30 september 2003 10:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Network Setup Opinion
Needed
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?
----- Original Message -----
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Enroth Björn
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003
5:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SV: Network Setup Opinion
Needed
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.
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Harish Sabnani
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 29 september 2003
19:45
Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopia: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ämne: Network Setup Opinion Needed
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
|
