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?
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>