Gary Sielaff wrote:
>
> Here's one for you network guru's.  I have to HP3000's.
> Using the same switch/hub.  One's IP address is
> 192.30.63.9 and the other is 192.30.63.10.
> Will this scenario slow one or the other down?  Or both down?  What
> might be a better way to go?

As is often the answer on this list, "It Depends".

If it is a switch, probably not.  If it is a hub, maybe.

Generally speaking, you don't want a lot of servers on a common hub.
You not only have to contend with collisions because of half-duplex
between the server and it's connections contending with each other,
but now you have two high-traffic servers that can collide with each
other (and the connections of the other as well).  But if your network
is completely non-switched (all hubs) it doesn't make any difference
at all - you're contending with collisions from the whole subnet no
matter where you plug in.

A switch will eliminate collisions between the two servers and their
respective connections, but if half-duplex, as the standard 10Mb
interface is, you still have your original collision rate.  If
full-duplex as is possible with 100BT (I hate that HP-ism, it's 100TX)
then you eliminate collisions altogether.  And if your 2 servers need
to talk to each other often, you *definitely* want them on the same
switch.

In either event, you must contend for bandwidth on the "uplink" of the
switch/hub.

A very important exception to this rule is if your network is laid out
in a hub-and-spoke topology, you DO want your servers on the central
switch - it minimizes the path to your users and thus the latency.  But
you DO want one honker of a switch with some hefty backplane speed.

Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *