[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Bulk] Re: [K12OSN] OT: parallel running cat5e to switches



Typically, unmanaged switches don't even support STP.  This is because STP allows you to change some of the parameters--Fast Learning / PortFast, whether you're running "traditional" STP or "rapid" STP, and so on.  What would very likely happen is a loop...which would bring down that entire bridged segment.

You really need managed switches to do this.

Have you done a bandwidth analysis to see just where your bottleneck is?

--TP
_______________________________
Do you GNU?
Microsoft Free since 2003--the ultimate antivirus protection!


Cory Cartwright wrote:
I apologize if you have already gotten or know the answer.  You are
talking about an ether channel and I don't believe an unmanaged switch
would support that.  What it would probably support is a (STP) spanning
tree protocol.  With STP one link would would be placed in a blocking
state while the other in a forwarding state, this provides redundancy
but not increased bandwidth.



On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 13:51 -0600, Barry R Cisna wrote:
  
Hello List,

I forgot to mention in my initial post,that these switches are unmanaged
switches. AKA plug'n play. 26port 24-10/100 + two GIGE uplink. I am
guessing I am SOL seeing how these can not be 'multilinked'?
Maybe time for some new managed switches,ay.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

Barry

_______________________________________________
K12OSN mailing list
K12OSN redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
    

_______________________________________________
K12OSN mailing list
K12OSN redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
For more info see <http://www.k12os.org>
  

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]