| [Windows] Configuring wired network for 20 devices I am configuring a network (domestic) in my new home.
I do not want to use wireless, as it would require that I purchase an adapter for each PC.
Also, the building has an inbuilt Ethernet cable infrastructure, it would be foolish not to make use of the advantages.
I'm interested in keeping the static IP configuration I had in my old home.
Both modem and router are already present, switches would need to be purchased (they are quite affordable domestic switches).
All network hardware will be inside a small server cabinet, with proper ventilation.
I have with me a schematic of what I have in mind:
There are a lot of PCs, but in fact only 3 of them regularly use the internet, and only 2 use heavy bandwidth (p2p, streaming, etc).
The "12 additional PCs" represent potential PCs in the network (empty wall Ethernet sockets), which could be present at any time.
This is basically me making the most of an existing infrastructure, making it ready for things like holding LAN parties, etc. (so all devices need to be visible from every computer).
OS: some of my PCs run windows XP professional (32 bit), others run Windows 7 home edition (64 bit). Some of my potential guests have MACs.
I have a few questions:
1 - Is this viable? Do you have improvement suggestions? Different hardware? (please mind the price range, these switches are about 40 EUR/50 Dollars each)
2 - How do I configure this setup so that all devices are visible by each other inside one big LAN network?
3 - Will the router be able to handle this huge LAN network? (mind you, only 4 or 5 devices would ever access the WAN simultaneously, so the emphasis is placed on LAN management)
Thanks for reading! |
|
Bink
join:2006-05-14
Denver, CO
kudos:4 | said by Deimos8:1 - Is this viable? Do you have improvement suggestions? Different hardware? (please mind the price range, these switches are about 40 EUR/50 Dollars each)
Perfectly viable. That said, an improvement would be a single 24-port switch.
said by Deimos8:2 - How do I configure this setup so that all devices are visible by each other inside one big LAN network?
Based on your diagram, this is exactly how it’ll work.
said by Deimos8:3 - Will the router be able to handle this huge LAN network? (mind you, only 4 or 5 devices would ever access the WAN simultaneously, so the emphasis is placed on LAN management)
I expect it will, but I’ve never benchmarked the switch ports of a D-Link. |
|
| reply to Deimos8
Second all of Bink's comments.
said by Deimos8:3 - Will the router be able to handle this huge LAN network? According to smallnetbuilder, DIR-655 can do 257Mbit WAN to LAN, 272Mbit LAN to WAN, 269Mbit
total simultaneous and 22K max simultaneous connections. Only way to be sure is plug it
in, invite everyone over, and wait for the gear to start screaming "Uncle!" or burst into flames.
Regards |
|
|
|
| reply to Deimos8
Looked around the web, and concluded Netgear GS608 8-port switch is a better option than the DGS-1008D, so the 4 switches will be GS608's.
(smallnetbuilder ran a test on un-managed 8 port switches a few years ago, this netgear model came out on top, not only for having the highest speed, but also for having the lowest data loss ratio (0%))
I prefer going with four 8 port switches for 2 reasons:
1 - the layout of ethernet outlets throughout the house requires flexibility, which a single 24 port piece of equipment would not allow for
2 - redundancy: if for some freakish reason one of the switches breaks down, I will not be left with almost no means of internet access until a replacement is found, as two of the switches will be always idling (for those 12 additional PCs that may show up occasionally) |
|
jimbopalmerTsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Windjammer Cable
| four 8 port switches will limit you to one gig per every 7 devices, a 24 port switch 'limits' you to one gig for every device. If your LAN ever does heavy internal traffic, the 24 port is 3 times more bandwidth.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
 AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3 | reply to Deimos8
The Asus rt N56U has some screaming specs at small net builders if you were looking at a router with a beefy engine. |
|
| said by jimbopalmer:four 8 port switches will limit you to one gig per every 7 devices, a 24 port switch 'limits' you to one gig for every device. Are you referring to the fact that every switch is ultimately limited to it's Gigabyte connection to the router, which means devices between different switches would encounter a bottleneck? Indeed it seems logical that a single switch would get rid of such a limitation, besides placing less strain on the router for internal traffic.
Could you suggest a 12~24 port switch with gigabyte connections that falls within the 100~200 EUR / 130~265$ range? I'm interested, but sceptic regarding the price of such equipment...
Also, I would prefer an unmanaged switch, but that may be idiotic of me... I'm affected by the preconception that a managed 24 port switch would probably be built with business/college networks in mind, which require a lot of tweaking/ setting up. I can handle a router, but high maintenance switches would be a bit out of my league... Could you please shed some light into the subject for me?
said by Anav:The Asus rt N56U has some screaming specs at small net builders if you were looking at a router with a beefy engine. I've seen it around smallnetbuilder, could you please elaborate? That site tends to put most of its emphasis on wireless capabilities, which are not my priority.
Are you implying that this Asus router would be able to handle a lot of strain, as in, having multiple computers in my network accessing the Internet and chugging bandwidth?
From what I've read, it has a few problems that supposedly go away with new firmware. Do you know anything about this issue? |
|
Reviews:
 ·link2voip
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| The Netgear GS724T can be found under $300 in Canada. Although it is managed, it acts like an unmanaged switch by default (as I'm sure most managed switches do).
I have a couple of these and find they're extraordinary value for the money.
--
db |
|
 mozerdLight Will Pierce The DarknessPremium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON | said by clarknova:The Netgear GS724T can be found under $300 in Canada.
I have a couple of these and find they're extraordinary value for the money.
After rebate this excellent Netger Switch GS724T cost $143 in Canada ... I have no idea what the cost would be in Europe under the Euros 
--
David Mozer
IT-Expert on Call
Information Technology for Home and Business |
|
| reply to Deimos8
said by Deimos8:3 - Will the router be able to handle this huge LAN network? (mind you, only 4 or 5 devices would ever access the WAN simultaneously, so the emphasis is placed on LAN management) This is not HUGE, a Google data center with its own power plant IS huge.
Router should handle it, just be aware p2p can go crazy, u can have one user with hundreds of session (peers) open, but many p2p app, when configured properly, will avoid such occurrence, *OR* you can buy a router with QOS, so your HTML traffic for example can never be overtaken by crazy p2p sessions.
For the same reason, if you can afford, buy switches with QOS, but not critical.
Why would you want STATIC IP? U are overthinking it, DHCP is a mature technology, everybody use it and no IT manager/admin is crazy enough to try to configure static on his 4,000 PC on the floor and neither should any of us. |
|
Bink
join:2006-05-14
Denver, CO
kudos:4 | said by jsmithepa:...DHCP is a mature technology, everybody use it and no IT manager/admin is crazy enough to try to configure static on his 4,000 PC on the floor and neither should any of us.
I highly concur with this—the value it provides outweighs any possible drawbacks. If you need a machine to always have the same IP, create a “reservation” for it. The ability to centrally manage the IP configuration of all your machines and provide a “plug and play” environment cannot be understated. |
|
| said by mozerd:I have no idea what the cost would be in Europe under the Euros 248,03 €
A bit of a stretch, is it worth it?
said by Bink:I highly concur with this—the value it provides outweighs any possible drawbacks. If you need a machine to always have the same IP, create a “reservation” for it. The ability to centrally manage the IP configuration of all your machines and provide a “plug and play” environment cannot be understated. Had no idea it was possible to create "reservations". Seems perfect.
If using this kind of router-->switch setup, where should I configure the IPs and DHCP? In the router? do those settings "go through" the switch, affecting the whole network? |
|
| said by Deimos8:Had no idea it was possible to create "reservations". Seems perfect.
If using this kind of router-->switch setup, where should I configure the IPs and DHCP? In the router? do those settings "go through" the switch, affecting the whole network?
For most LAN, u just need a SINGLE DHCP server. Nowadays every device seems to offer this service so just be sure it's disabled everywhere (server that is) and just enable the ONE. Since you plan to place multiple switches then the logical place to have it is at the router.
DHCP servers are very flexible, you can "reserve" static or as the case in mine, I tell it to *only* make a certain range of address available for leasing, and the remainder, not touched and automatically available for use as u wish. |
|
AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3 | reply to Deimos8
Yes the ASUS rt N56U has interesting hardware bits and sepcifically a separate nat engine processor from the CPU so thus it can easily handle multiple connections and large throughput as you can see on the graphs, addiitionally its switch internal is also smart enough to recognize 802.q and 802.1p traffic without using up cpu cycles. Just an efficient smart design. |
|
| reply to Deimos8
reservations are nice, but if you just need a handful of devices on the LAN to have a static IP address, just assign them a static address outside the scope of the DHCP range, that is what i do and it works great.
DHCP for everything else. |
|
 wayjacPremium,MVM
join:2001-12-22
Indy
kudos:1 | reply to Deimos8
said by Deimos8:Had no idea it was possible to create "reservations" Make sure that the router has the dhcp reservation optionsaid by Deimos8:If using this kind of router-->switch setup, where should I configure the IPs and DHCP? In the router? do those settings "go through" the switch, affecting the whole network? Both dhcp range/pool and dhcp reservation are options found on the router |
|
AsherN
join:2010-08-23
Thornhill, ON | reply to Deimos8
said by Deimos8:I prefer going with four 8 port switches for 2 reasons:
1 - the layout of ethernet outlets throughout the house requires flexibility, which a single 24 port piece of equipment would not allow for
quote:
All network hardware will be inside a small server cabinet, with proper ventilation.
Those statements are pretty mutually exclusive. 4 8-port switches in the same cabinet does not offer any more flexibility than a single 24 port switch. quote:
2 - redundancy: if for some freakish reason one of the switches breaks down, I will not be left with almost no means of internet access until a replacement is found, as two of the switches will be always idling (for those 12 additional PCs that may show up occasionally)
Pretty irrelevant. Switches have a tendency to run for years. Plus if you lose the switch, you can connect the PCs straight to the router until you get a replacement. 24 port switches tend to be designed for business settings and be more reliable than 8 port switches. |
|
