[Tripredacus]

The issue has been resolved. We replaced one end. Also found out that we only get 1% download speed when not teaming the NICs. Also the Team is for failover only, no aggregation.

[nmX.Memnoch]

Your issue sounded like a loop got created!

I was kinda reading through the earlier posts in this thread. Have you replaced those switches with managed switches yet? We use Extreme Networks switches. Very fast, very easy to configure and not nearly as expensive as other options (yes, still expensive, but not nearly as much as other alternatives). If you aren't doing any VLAN management (which you currently aren't since they're unmanaged switches) and don't need Layer 3 managed switches you can look at their X150 (10/100) and X350 (Gigabit) line. They're Layer 2 only and can't be stacked, but they're also much cheaper. We use a combination of X450's, X250's and X150's.

[Tripredacus]

nmX.Memnoch, on 13 April 2010 - 08:01 PM, said:

Your issue sounded like a loop got created!

I was kinda reading through the earlier posts in this thread. Have you replaced those switches with managed switches yet? We use Extreme Networks switches. Very fast, very easy to configure and not nearly as expensive as other options (yes, still expensive, but not nearly as much as other alternatives). If you aren't doing any VLAN management (which you currently aren't since they're unmanaged switches) and don't need Layer 3 managed switches you can look at their X150 (10/100) and X350 (Gigabit) line. They're Layer 2 only and can't be stacked, but they're also much cheaper. We use a combination of X450's, X250's and X150's.

Yeah I left the "loop" part out as I wasn't sure how to word it politely...

We still are just using the old switches, except now the plan has been upgraded to getting managed switches as well as patch panels. Yes we just have Cat6 running through the ceiling and under tables. We do not need VLAN or anything crazy. This network has is isolated, we only want to be able to have switches that allow 100Mbps clients to run at 100 and the gigabit to run at gigabit at the same time. Currently, if a 100Mbps client is running (which it will if we use DOS Ghost client) the entire LAN drops to 100! Then what happens is that the gigabit clients end up timing out and the server will eventually cease to see that particular segment or the entire network.

This wouldn't be such a big issue if we didn't have to use Ghost, but we still must use it to image XP machines with HD based recovery, since Imagex can't do it. And all the DOS NDIS drivers for Ghost run gigabit NICs at 100. Also, some onboard NICs (not Intel, but moreso Broadcom, RTL, etc) do not run at gigabit speed unless Windows is installed. So for example, a gigabit NIC will run at 100 during PXE or will if its just sitting in the BIOS or any pre-OS installed state, it will report to the switch its 100, make the light orange, then put Windows on it, install the driver and the light turns green/gigabit. Really annoying.

[cluberti]

Sounds like some bargain basement switches there - a 100Mb client shouldn't knock the switching backplane down to 100Mb for ALL ports. That's just crazy talk .

[Tripredacus]

cluberti, on 14 April 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

Sounds like some bargain basement switches there - a 100Mb client shouldn't knock the switching backplane down to 100Mb for ALL ports. That's just crazy talk .

Well when we use Ghost, its not coming from the 2008 server. The host for Ghost is 2003. So Ghost "Multicast" is emulated, and 2003 doesn't do multicast. The end result is that 2003 Unicasts the image to all interfaces, which is why the entire network slows down.

I summed it up today in discussion, one of my underlings said "i'll wait until later to run this Ghost because I don't want to slow down the network" and I responded no go ahead, the more it gets slow and breaks, maybe we'll get lucky and management will open the wallet for the right hardware for us.

[cluberti]

Tripredacus, on 14 April 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

This wouldn't be such a big issue if we didn't have to use Ghost, but we still must use it to image XP machines with HD based recovery, since Imagex can't do it.

What specifically are you doing that imagex can't handle with XP? Are we talking about using the Ghost software to make backups that you're restoring (aka, not sysprep images)?

[Tripredacus]

cluberti, on 15 April 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Tripredacus, on 14 April 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

This wouldn't be such a big issue if we didn't have to use Ghost, but we still must use it to image XP machines with HD based recovery, since Imagex can't do it.

What specifically are you doing that imagex can't handle with XP? Are we talking about using the Ghost software to make backups that you're restoring (aka, not sysprep images)?

Recovery partitions!

[cluberti]

Got it .

[nmX.Memnoch]

Tripredacus, on 14 April 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

Yeah I left the "loop" part out as I wasn't sure how to word it politely...

You really need some managed switches.

I'll go back to the Extreme switches again. They have a feature called ELRP--Extreme Loop Recovery Protocol. It's not on by default but once configured it will detect a loop and automatically disable the looped ports. If you have their management app--EPICenter--you can configure it to forward switch events to you via email and/or text message so you'll know immediately when that loop is created and which ports it was created on.

It also helps to be able to disable ununsed ports so someone can't just walk up and plug in.