Router / Do I need a gigabit?

[JyushinX]

Hi,

If you read my other recent post you already know my situation. If not, the long and short of it is:

I am setting up a server (SBS 2003) for a friend's sign company. They work with large image files and will be storing them on the server. They are going to need Gigabit speeds since they will be working with the files off of the server so frequently. This being the case...

The setup will be

Modem -> Router -> Server -> Switch -> Workstations

Now. My question is, do I need a gigabit router? If I get a gigabit switch, will I be transferring files between the server and workstations at 1000Mbps? Or do I need a gigabit Router as well? It seems to me it is out of the "loop" and will be handling the internet connection (which obviously doesn't need gigabit speeds), but I'm not sure if the info goes through the router as well.

If I do need a gigabit router, can anyone recommend one? Nothing too expensive though :) I was looking at Linksys's Business Line gigabit switches, but they don't have any gigabit routers. This is what made me question if I need it or not.

Thanks.

[jmwills]

The Gigabit swich will be sufficient since there is no such thing as a Gigabit router (to my knowledge).
The Gig switch will allow fast transfers than your regular 10/100 switches provided all the desktops have gigabit NIC cards in them.
In short, all desktops and the server will need GIG lan cards and the GIG switch for what you want to do.

[CataclysmCow]

If there were no such thing as a "gigabit router" any link faster than OC-24 would be useless. Cisco's 12000 series can route up to 60Gbps. The latest BFR (yes, it stands for Big Fast Router) from Cisco, the Carrier Routing System, can route up to 92Tbps.

There are a couple of home broadband routers now with GbE capable switches, but of course the WAN interface remains 10/100.

[jmwills]

Like I said, to my knowledge, but that would be useless and not cost effective in this scenario.

[SpywareDr]

The Cisco CRS-1 Carrier Routing System can scale up to as many as 1,152 40-Gbps slots all operating as a single system.

http://h1.ripway.com/SpywareDr/VirtualDr/images/cisco_crs.gif

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.html

[JyushinX]

Thanks for the responses.

So being that I don't need a GigaBit Router for my purposes,

I was looking at the Linksys RV042 4 port Router (from the business line). It is UPnP compatible and sports an SPI firewall. I am assuming SBS 2003 will be able to configure this router's firewall but I wanted to make sure first. I also was interested to see if you had any opinions on this router.

Thanks.

[flachebaq]

The setup will be

Modem -> Router -> Server -> Switch -> Workstations
Thanks.

Ummm.... I would do:

Modem ==> Router ==> Switch ==> Server & Workstations

First off, kill UPnP (Universal Plug & Play). UPnP allows an application on one of your user's workstations to open an incoming port on your router without intervention from anyone (see: http://www.grc.com/unpnp/unpnp.htm ).

Second of all, considering the setup you're going to have, putting the server between the Internet connection and the workstations adds unneeded complication to the network and increases the workload on your server. And, it sounds like you're server is already going to be processing huge chunks of data. Why ask it to process ALL of the network traffic and deal with 100+ MB files?

Third, ditch the idea of getting a gigabit switch. Linksys makes one; it is expensive and I wasn't terribly impressed. Instead, look at Gigabit switches. They are coming down in price and may be worth paying a little more. You can always plug the server and all your workstations into the Gigabit switch, and then patch the switch over to your router. Then, everyone on the network will be Gigabit.

[JyushinX]

I responded in the other post regarding this as well. But to repeat, everything I have read has said that is the ideal setup (modem -> router -> server -> switch->workstations). Being that there are only a few workstations I don't imagine there will be much network strain on the server. Do you disagree? I don't want the server to slow down considerably if it has to be processing a lot of data in terms of printing. Note that the printing is not done constantly.

Thanks.

[jmwills]

This is an SBS box so all network traffic has to go thru the server. The server is a DC, Exchange Server, file server, and is also capable of handling ISA functions (SBS Premium). Just make sure you have enough RAM to do the job.
Andy Goodman over at www.downhomecomputers.com has an excellent setup tutorial.

[flachebaq]

This is an SBS box so all network traffic has to go thru the server.

Since when? It just seems like the client workstations are going to be over-managed in this configuration. I've always been of the opinion that you should always try to take the simplest way out. You already have a router on the network, putting the server between the router and the workstations is just going to add un-needed complexity to the network. The only reason to have the server inbetween all the traffic would be to run NAT and possibly ISA server. Your router will already do NAT. Do 5 PC's need ISA server? Not really.

My primary concern would be Internet access while a big job is printing. Think about it, if you stick to the two network card setup, you're going to be pushing 100+ over an Ethernet connection that is also being used to connect everyone to the Internet. If someone is trying to do something online (like surf the web, bid on a contract on a web site, send email, etc.), their Internet connection is going to grind to a halt and possibly give them time-out errors. Even if you go with the three NIC setup, you're still going to have a server chewing on a 100+ MB file while people are online. Did I mention that the other 5 PC's also have 100+ MB files open too?

I'll think you'll save some headaches and some configuration headaches if you keep the server on the switch with the rest of the workstations.

[jmwills]

The stations are getting their DNS from the server's second NIC, that's why I said what I said.
Nothing grinds to a halt with enough RAM.

[JyushinX]

Does 2GB sound sufficient?

[jmwills]

That's a good starting point. Addressing the issue of printing a 100 mb file, most of that is going to be cached in the printer and not on the server, providing you have a decent printer. We have an HP 9050 that has 120 mb RAM on it.

[Train]

Max transfer rate will be about 480MB, so the waiting, if needed, will not be very long.