10 vs 100 speed port for users

[vipperdigger]

Much debate here about which is better. One side says set users at 10M and servers at 100m as to not overwhelm servers. Other side says set both at 100 to get data off wire quicker as todays servers NIC's and switches have so much buffer it does not hurt servers. Any links or white papers that has done studies to prove this one way or the other? Has any one with experience on mass changing on user ports and their network performance?

 

[bierhunter]

I've dealt with large enterprise networks with thousands of users, and I've never had problems with keeping the user at 100MB. In fact I've seen the opposite. Keeping them at 10MB is a problem. Plus, I would rather let the server process the user's request as quickly as possible to free up resources.

Not all of the network traffic is client to server. There is also printing, internet, etc. If the server can't handle the load, then the issue most likely isn't with the bandwidth. It's more likely a problem with too many users per server. Time to spread out the workload.

 

[vipperdigger]

Thanks. The enterprise I deal with has 3000 users, 500+ remote locations, 10 regional offices, 3 corporate HQ's accessing large NT and IBM servers. We are not seeing over use of the servers nic's. We use Gig fiber uplinks to the switches and 100 Meg/1G to servers. Backbone switches are 5509/5513, 4506, 4006, and 6500's. What is the problem is a group at the Central Data Center opinion of the "small highway merging into a large highway will not cause a backup on the large highway". I would like a white paper or some document where a study has been done in order to refute them. I would like to see 100Meg at the desktops instead of 10/Full. But the powers that dictate say otherwise.

 

[baddos]

Just do some statistics on your current setup. I am asuming you are using the 6500 for you servers, so turn on netflow and gather the data.

Having 10Mb at the desktop in a Microsoft enviroment is generally a bad idead. Let's assume you have a Windows 2000 file server, An Exchange server, Internet Web, Network Printers.

The Exchange RPC packets are quite large, and most people have Outlook running all day. The File server is probably housing a fat Excel spreadsheet, or a 100mb powerpoint. Maybe just pr0n though...

If a user has only a 10mbit connection, that means they can only transfer data at 1.2Mbytes per second. If they have 100mbit they can transfer at 12Mbytes per second. Meaning a 100 Mbyte Powerpoint will take 83 seconds to save or open on a 10mb connection, but 8.3 seconds and a 100mb connection. Drastic increase in performance there. Taking 1 1/2 minutes to just open or save that file is a cut in employee productivity.

You also have to look at your server load. At any given time, how many of the 3000 users are copying/writing large data to them? If the server's NICs can't keep up, you should be able to throw down $100 for a 1gbit NIC card to increase performance. All of your switches mentioned support this technology.

If cost is an issue (hard to beleive considering having 5509/5513, 4506, 4006, and 6500's), then you can do rate limiting on your vlans/segments so the user's vlans/segments don't suck all the bandwidth.that you have quite a bit of

 

[bierhunter]

I understand where you're coming from. I've had to deal with people like that myself. Their minds are stuck a few years back, and they haven't kept up with progress.

Many designs used the 10Mb at the access level due to cost. But as price per port has dropped, 100Mb is more commonplace. That doesn't help you out though. They want some sort of 'official' documentation. I'll see if I can dig some stuff up. There's a lot of old documents out there still teaching the 10Mb into 100Mb trunks and servers, but what we really see these days is 100Mb into 1Gb. I'll help look around for some info for you.

 

[bierhunter]

Well, here's something that may help. It's a white paper from Cisco regarding migrating from 10Mb to 100Mb to 1Gb at the desktop and compares them.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk214/technologies_white_paper09186a00801a7595.shtml

 

[Lequang]

One aspect you need to have a look is the architecture of your network. Our choice is 100 Mbs for wrkstn concentrated in C2950 with GBIC uplink to core switch 6500.
Servers in serverfarm are set to 100 Mbs plugged into C3750 (10/100/1000) with GBIC uplink to C6500 using etherchannel.

No problems has been experienced up to now