10 to Auto/Auto or 100 Full on Cisco swich cost advantage

10 to Auto/Auto or 100 Full on Cisco swich cost advantage
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 comp.dcom.lans.ethernet  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
10 to Auto/Auto or 100 Full on Cisco swich cost advantage kellysc 03-20-2007
Posted by kellysc on March 20, 2007, 9:11 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


Let me first start by saying that I don't know all the technical
terminoligy when it comes to Fast Ethernet.

I work for a large company that to date has stuck with the standard
for remote sites to leave the switch ports set @ 10 mbps on client
connections. However, we are fully wired with Cat 5 cabling
throughout the building and have had our server updated to run at 100
Full and have found that we could get the entire building updated to
100 on all clients...

The only issue is that change does not happen easily for us and
usually we have to justify some type of change with a cost impact or
analysis that will show a cost savings.

We all know the differences that 10 vs 100 will make to all clients
when it comes to network resources, but saying that is never enough.

Can anyone direct me to any tools, spreadsheets, etc that I could use
to calculate some numbers that could be handed off to managment that
would help to estimate the average cost savings per user.


Thanks...


Posted by Rick F. on March 20, 2007, 11:38 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


> Let me first start by saying that I don't know all the technical
> terminoligy when it comes to Fast Ethernet.
>
> I work for a large company that to date has stuck with the standard
> for remote sites to leave the switch ports set @ 10 mbps on client
> connections. However, we are fully wired with Cat 5 cabling
> throughout the building and have had our server updated to run at 100
> Full and have found that we could get the entire building updated to
> 100 on all clients...
>
> The only issue is that change does not happen easily for us and
> usually we have to justify some type of change with a cost impact or
> analysis that will show a cost savings.
>
> We all know the differences that 10 vs 100 will make to all clients
> when it comes to network resources, but saying that is never enough.
>
> Can anyone direct me to any tools, spreadsheets, etc that I could use
> to calculate some numbers that could be handed off to managment that
> would help to estimate the average cost savings per user.

I think the biggest "loss" is productivity from the missing speed that
could be there and that you may need to come up with some fudge numbers
for what a typical task might take if their lan connection is 10Mb vs.
100Mb and quantify the gap between them and assign a $/hr figure to it
and then multiply that by the number of people impacted to get an
overall cost figure.. I believe that's done all the time by analysts
when trying to compute these sorts of fuzzy numbers. We do that sort
of thing all the time for Six Sigma activities (don't get me started on
that though!)


Posted by kellysc on March 20, 2007, 12:26 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


>
>
>
>
>
> > Let me first start by saying that I don't know all the technical
> > terminoligy when it comes to Fast Ethernet.
>
> > I work for a large company that to date has stuck with the standard
> > for remote sites to leave the switch ports set @ 10 mbps on client
> > connections. However, we are fully wired with Cat 5 cabling
> > throughout the building and have had our server updated to run at 100
> > Full and have found that we could get the entire building updated to
> > 100 on all clients...
>
> > The only issue is that change does not happen easily for us and
> > usually we have to justify some type of change with a cost impact or
> > analysis that will show a cost savings.
>
> > We all know the differences that 10 vs 100 will make to all clients
> > when it comes to network resources, but saying that is never enough.
>
> > Can anyone direct me to any tools, spreadsheets, etc that I could use
> > to calculate some numbers that could be handed off to managment that
> > would help to estimate the average cost savings per user.
>
> I think the biggest "loss" is productivity from the missing speed that
> could be there and that you may need to come up with some fudge numbers
> for what a typical task might take if their lan connection is 10Mb vs.
> 100Mb and quantify the gap between them and assign a $/hr figure to it
> and then multiply that by the number of people impacted to get an
> overall cost figure.. I believe that's done all the time by analysts
> when trying to compute these sorts of fuzzy numbers. We do that sort
> of thing all the time for Six Sigma activities (don't get me started on
> that though!)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think that idea will do just fine for what I need to get this
started.

Thanks!


Posted by on March 20, 2007, 12:45 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


>
>
>
>
> > > Let me first start by saying that I don't know all the technical
> > > terminoligy when it comes to Fast Ethernet.
>
> > > I work for a large company that to date has stuck with the standard
> > > for remote sites to leave the switch ports set @ 10 mbps on client
> > > connections. However, we are fully wired with Cat 5 cabling
> > > throughout the building and have had our server updated to run at 100
> > > Full and have found that we could get the entire building updated to
> > > 100 on all clients...
>
> > > The only issue is that change does not happen easily for us and
> > > usually we have to justify some type of change with a cost impact or
> > > analysis that will show a cost savings.
>
> > > We all know the differences that 10 vs 100 will make to all clients
> > > when it comes to network resources, but saying that is never enough.
>
> > > Can anyone direct me to any tools, spreadsheets, etc that I could use
> > > to calculate some numbers that could be handed off to managment that
> > > would help to estimate the average cost savings per user.
>
> > I think the biggest "loss" is productivity from the missing speed that
> > could be there and that you may need to come up with some fudge numbers
> > for what a typical task might take if their lan connection is 10Mb vs.
> > 100Mb and quantify the gap between them and assign a $/hr figure to it
> > and then multiply that by the number of people impacted to get an
> > overall cost figure.. I believe that's done all the time by analysts
> > when trying to compute these sorts of fuzzy numbers. We do that sort
> > of thing all the time for Six Sigma activities (don't get me started on
> > that though!)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think that idea will do just fine for what I need to get this
> started.
>
> Thanks!

You made one statement that needs to be addressed. You said remote
site. A question to consider is where your resources such as email
and file services reside? If all or some of your resources are remote
over a WAN connection such as a T1, your numbers will need to be
adjusted for WAN and or local LAN.


Posted by chris on March 29, 2007, 9:44 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options


On Mar 20, 12:45 pm, cghoeri...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > I work for a large company that to date has stuck with the standard
> > > > for remote sites to leave the switch ports set @ 10 mbps on client
> > > > connections. However, we are fully wired with Cat 5 cabling
> > > > throughout the building and have had our server updated to run at 100
> > > > Full and have found that we could get the entire building updated to
> > > > 100 on all clients...
<snip>
> > > > We all know the differences that 10 vs 100 will make to all clients
> > > > when it comes to network resources, but saying that is never enough.
<snip>
> You made one statement that needs to be addressed. You said remote
> site.

I don't think that's the only statement that needs addressing. I
think you'd be hard-pressed to find universal agreement with:

> > > > We all know the differences that 10 vs 100 will make to all clients

If the majority of your traffic is between these 10Mb/s clients, then
an upgrade to 100Mb/s interfaces will certainly make a difference.

But that's not how the traffic at remote sites of large companies
which stick with "standard" configurations usually looks.

The majority of traffic at these sites is usually between the clients
and boxes like the one you described as "our server". ...Or between
the clients and some systems on the other end of the remote site's WAN
link.

Are you sure the client NICs are your bottleneck?

/chris


Similar ThreadsPosted
10M full forced port connected to 100M full Duplex port March 25, 2006, 1:49 am
cisco switch February 2, 2007, 4:41 am
cisco 2960 March 5, 2007, 5:12 am
HP/Cisco Vlan fun January 9, 2008, 10:45 am
Netgear and Cisco Trunk May 3, 2007, 4:04 am
Allied Telesyn SFP in a Cisco switch ? March 10, 2006, 5:44 am
Allied Telesyn vs Cisco vs netgear March 24, 2006, 4:02 pm
Cisco Aironet 350: remote reboot May 21, 2008, 1:05 pm
Official - Collisions are errors - Nokia, Cisco November 1, 2005, 7:48 am
Cisco Avaya dot1q trunking issue! March 22, 2006, 6:10 am

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map