Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:43:45 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Mark Holloway <mholloway@flashmail.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OC3 versus T1 Circuits Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002292238160.6235-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <002001bf82d5$7f5a6a20$a52410ac@sierrahealth.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Mark Holloway wrote: > applications. Until late 1999 they were running these applications in > a client/server fashion. The ten sites are all on a shared FDDI ring, > but each location is a 10MB, shared, half duplex connection. The > original strategy was to have a full OC3 from the main campus going to > a Sprint Central Office, then have 10MB fractional OC3 going to each > site (almost like Frame Relay in the MAN). However, we have since > setup many Windows Terminal Servers (25 servers @ 200 clients per > server) and the clients are using Citrix on their local desktops. > This solution works well. But now I am wondering if the fractional > OC3 is overkill?? I was thinking maybe either a T1 line or two T1 > lines bonded for EACH SITE rather than a 10MB OC3 for each site would > be more realistic? Is a T1 really .15 MB? Or 1.5MB? I think the ... A T1 is 1.536mbs (MB/s != mbs). I would suggest that you should monitor the traffic utlization over the network and see whether dual-T1s are reasonable for your applications. No one can recommend one solution or another for your use without looking at you traffic. Since all the servers and clients seem to be running right now, just watch it. In fact, I'm astonished that anyone would put a network in without quantifing the throughput requirements of each site and the users at the site. Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10002292238160.6235-100000>