• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Stacking Switches

P

PHILIP1193

n00b
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
14
Im double checking my thinking as im doubting my self to which is the best way of doing switch stacking

i have 3 x HP 2650 Switchs which are layer 3 (48 port 10/100 with 2 gigabit uplinks) which all stack together fine. Now iv set this up and all is dandy.

Now i have it currently set up as shown in the picture below (see current in pic), which to me is the proper way of doing a stack but not nessacerily the best way of getting the most bandwidth getting outta my servers on a lan?

The current set up only allows 1GB of bandwidth to the core switch (16 port gigabit) which is where the rest of my servers are and to me it doesn't make sense to do it through one gigabit uplink as when you have 150 odd users pulling off 3-4 servers through 1 GB uplink then bottleneckign will occur?

My thought then turned to the fact that with game servers i need more bandwidth. I thought that my option 2 is a much better way of getting more bandwidth to each switch by giving it, its own uplink to the gigabit back bone. See option 2 in the picture



Now the switch still can be stacked and the master slave thing works still and all still managable and i feel ill get more bandwidth as all the servers are on the gigabit switch.

Which option would you suggest. im thinking opton 2 for bandwidth and best switch set up for pings and stop bottlenecking??

Phil
 
Where I work, it's set up like your 'Current', but it's from the FastIron, to the first switched, then just up linked to the remaining 2 switches. We leave the open ports on the FastIron in case we need to move servers around between buildings so we can program the ports as if they were on another IP range so the servers don't need to be reconfigured.

However, I think option 2 for you would be the best setup. You could try both and run some benchies.
 
I think with the "current" situation, you could potentially saturate that first switch if you had heavy traffic. I ran into that problem at a TV studio I worked for in the past. Personally, I'd go with "Option 2". That way you have all the users on the individual switches with dedicated home run lines.
 
stackbm1sj4.jpg
 
Do the 48's support trunking on the gigabit uplinks? If so, option 2, but with trunks to the new core switch. This gives you 2GBps between switches, should make it much more difficult to saturate.
 
Always go star * if possible when doing this so 2 is the best way to handle it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top