[puickj]

Hi, here is my Company LAN setup.
1) Network of 8-10 MACs, ranging from G3, G4 and some Powerbooks
2) OS is version 9.2 and 10.x
3) One file server which everyone access from. This server's spec as follows -> G3, 1x4gb ATA, 1x4 gb SCSI external storage, 256mb memory(??)
4) Acer HUB 324T, 24 ports.

The problem is a few employee's complain file access, operation in 'general' is very slow. I wonder if it is because of:

a) the slow G3 server
b) slow ACER Hub (maybe go with a switch)
c) Different versions of OS
d) A bit of all above?

Also, can anyone recommend a good NAS for extra storage solution?
Thanks,
Jeff

[John Strung]

All of the above, but exchanging the hub for a switch is probably most cost effective. Also, switch from AppleTalk to TCP/IP for networking. You will have to put all your Macs on fixed IP addresses to do that and don't forget that with fixed IP addresses you have to specify the domain name server.

Do you have high speed internet access? Are you using a router?

[larkost]

Fixed IP vs. DHCP will not increase speed (except at IP lease renewal... and that takes all of a second once every few days...). And AppleTalk over IP does not care. You can even use ZeroConf assigned addresses and it will work (MacOS prior to 10.2 does not understand this).

If you are using 9.2 this is most likely the culprit as in bad situations (packet collision or not great wiring) it seems to have massive problems filesharing with MacOS 10. You also have to make sure that you have IP filesharing enabled, and try connecting with the network browser, and typing in the IP address manually (you can then make a alias of this connection).

And on the NAS front... you would probably be better off going with a Mac mini at the moment.

[puickj]

Thank you for your reply,
So it would help if....
1) all machines upgraded to newest (and all the same) OSesssessss.
2) get a Minimac...

* The Acer hub is a 10/100, I don't think it should be an issue?
* With regards to enabling IP filesharing, connect to network browser, typing IP address manually, does that mean I have to have Static iP address for all machines, or just the file server?

thank you,

Jeff

Originally posted by larkost:
Fixed IP vs. DHCP will not increase speed (except at IP lease renewal... and that takes all of a second once every few days...). And AppleTalk over IP does not care. You can even use ZeroConf assigned addresses and it will work (MacOS prior to 10.2 does not understand this).

If you are using 9.2 this is most likely the culprit as in bad situations (packet collision or not great wiring) it seems to have massive problems filesharing with MacOS 10. You also have to make sure that you have IP filesharing enabled, and try connecting with the network browser, and typing in the IP address manually (you can then make a alias of this connection).

And on the NAS front... you would probably be better off going with a Mac mini at the moment.

[puickj]

Internet access... is ADSL, probably 1.5/256, using a modem-router.
Thanks,
Jeff

Originally posted by John Strung:
All of the above, but exchanging the hub for a switch is probably most cost effective. Also, switch from AppleTalk to TCP/IP for networking. You will have to put all your Macs on fixed IP addresses to do that and don't forget that with fixed IP addresses you have to specify the domain name server.

Do you have high speed internet access? Are you using a router?

[larkost]

Originally posted by puickj:
Thank you for your reply,
So it would help if....
1) all machines upgraded to newest (and all the same) OSesssessss.

Just as long as they are all in the X range, that would be sufficient for this conversation.

2) get a Minimac...

I am not going to recommend against it. It is about as expensive as a SAN would be.

* The Acer hub is a 10/100, I don't think it should be an issue?

A true switch (think $100+) would be better, I am not sure it is the limiting factor here. Simply not enough information. But you also have to think about the cables. I have seen lots of cases where low grade cable was dragged across florescent lighting and there was huge packet loss. TCP handles it, AppleTalk does not always (even over TCP).

* With regards to enabling IP filesharing, connect to network browser, typing IP address manually, does that mean I have to have Static iP address for all machines, or just the file server?

This would mean you would need a stable IP address for the server. Even under most DHCP servers the leases are stable. Under some you can even set them as completely stable based on MAC address. Rendezvous names can also be used here (10.2 and above on both sides).

[ghporter]

Hub = slow, switch = faster. It's because a hub simply congregates all the network connections, which leads to collisions out the wazzoo. Packet collisions are a major slow down contributor because the sending computer has to wait and then try to retransmit. Subsequent collisions on a busy network are not just possible, they're probable.

A switch is an intelligent device that switches packets just to their intended destination. Collisions are almost completely unheard of, and the data just goes on its merry way without waiting for retransmits. A busy network needs a switch instead of a hub.

[larkost]

Originally posted by ghporter:
Hub = slow, switch = faster. It's because a hub simply congregates all the network connections, which leads to collisions out the wazzoo. Packet collisions are a major slow down contributor because the sending computer has to wait and then try to retransmit. Subsequent collisions on a busy network are not just possible, they're probable.

A switch is an intelligent device that switches packets just to their intended destination. Collisions are almost completely unheard of, and the data just goes on its merry way without waiting for retransmits. A busy network needs a switch instead of a hub.

Just to get rid of an oversimplification. If there is no network congestion then a hub is always faster than a switch since all it does it to instantly repeat all signals to all ports. There is no processing. With a switch the IP headers have to be examined and it has to determine where the packet is going. That takes time (on a computer's scale of time)

Now in the real world network congestion (even low level) is very common, and with more than 4 computers a switch is almost always faster.

One last note, there are a number of cheap "switches" on the market now that are really two hubs sandwiched together with a bridge (router with only two ports) in between them (one for 10mbit, and one for 100). For this conversation these are not hubs. There is also the complexities of simplex vs duplex, and how fast the switch backbone is. But I really don't think this conversation is at that level.

[ghporter]

Larkost, did I really oversimplify? I guess I did.

Ok, more explanation. As I said, a hub merely conglomerates all the connected network lines; it basically hooks up the send pair from each port to the receive pairs of all the other ports. Connecting your computers with a hub creates a shared network in which all the computers compete for a share of the available bandwidth. Data packets are broadcast to all nodes on the network, which slows down useful traffic because each network card must examine every packet to see if it is the intended recipient, discarding most packets because they're for some other network card.

A switch, on the other hand, works on the store and forward principle. It buffers each packet, examines it for its destination, then sends it only to the intended destination's port. This has the effect of making the entire theoretical maximum of 100 megabits per second available to each computer on the network-each conversation appears to be (except for a tiny lag at the very begining) a direct cable connection from the sender to the receiver.

Anyway, larkost is very correct in pointing out that there are a bunch of varieties in switches to choose from. For the fastest performance, you need a switch that offers full duplex operation for all ports. You should also choose a switch with autosensing of connection rates if you have older equipment that runs at 10BaseT speeds. Further, you'll need at least as many ports on the switch as you have computers to connect, plus one for uplink to your broadband connection. By the way, having a switch connecting your computers to your broadband connection will make surfing and downloads much faster, too.

A final note. The common "cable/DSL router" or "gateway router" product that you can find in so many stores is a combination of router and switch-usually a 4-port switch-in one box. I have "daisy chained a second such router's switch on my gateway router, so that I can have a number of wired computers, my wireless access point, and a print server all connected to the network. My son's XBox live connection is through the "downstream" router, and there is no perceptible gaming lag. The only time you'll really notice such lags as switches can generate is when you are close to saturating the switch. The rest of the time it's transparent.