Office network, need a lot of help

Samson · 13-07-2002 11:57am #1

I have decided that our network(s) need to be sorted out in work, for a number of reasons:

*I want to get ADSL in, to save money, presently most of our PCs are using dial up (PTSN and ISDN) for E-mail and internet connectivity, and it's costing an absolute fortune in call charges.
*I have two seperate (very small) peer to peer networks operating, one is 10base2 with 4 machines connected (for Quake), the other is an RF 11MbS with 2 machines connected (for accounts). This is messy, and I need to give accounts system access to more people.
*The RF peer to peer network is too slow for our accounts software (latest incarnation of Sage), therefore, I need to get it sorted out properly.

So, I need quite a bit of advice on how to go about this.
Frankly, I know fuck all about networking other than the bare basics.
In this instance I know I need to do the following:
Buy a decent server.
Buy a 3com 100baseT 12 port hub.
Get the place properly cabled (cat5).
Buy decent 100baseT network cards.

What I need to know specifically is:
*Do I need anything else?
*Where do I find someone (other than our electrician) to do the cabling and what will it cost? our premises is very old and modular, I suspect this will be a whore of a job.
*Should I upgrade the PC operating systems so that they all match? (some are Win95, some Win98, some WinME; I'm thinking Win2000).
*What sort of spec. server should I need and what will it cost?
*How do I share the ADSL access between people?

That's all I can think of for the moment.
I eagerly await your comments and advice

ando · 13-07-2002 2:24pm

so basically, you want a new network setup:

www.nets.ie

not sure of pricing, I'm just an engineer

*who needs a payrise* LoL

Upgrading your workstations is a good idea. There's nothing worse than supporting a win95 machine. Windows 2000 is the most stable of any of the Microsoft OS's

sceptre · 13-07-2002 2:42pm

Woooh, that's a long list

During my last sysadmin job (which lasted about three years) I went through pretty much all that you're listing. Except we had no net access at the start and all machines (from 30 at the beginning to 70 at the end were on lovely BNC cabling).

6 machines isn't too bad. The downside is that because it's only 6 machines your budget may be low.

Getting CAT5 wired isn't too bad - many reputable places will do this for you. I used FBS in Limerick so I can't suggest anywhere for Dublin. All told, including two nice new servers and all the cabling, our total bill was a shade under 20 grand.

So:
Do you need anything else?
No, not really. I'd consider getting a switch rather than a regular hub. Prices have dropped a lot over the last five years - may as well keep everything to 100Mps rather than having the machiens effectively sharing the bandwidth.

Where do you find someone to do the cabling?
I'll leave this to someone else who can recommend somewhere in Dublin.

Should you update the PC operating systems?
Ideally yes, both for your own convenience and that of the users. I don't know how much PC sharing there is in your place or if people swap PCs on a regular basis but if there is, roving profiles are perfect for users. You'll need to have them all on an NT OS to support this though. then it depends whether the PCs can take Win2000 or not. Realistically you'll get away with about a P3-400 as minimum spec (obviously well-higher if you're getting new PCs) - with plenty of RAM obviously. Less than that and the whole thing will drive users nuts. Supporting more than 2 versions of Windows in any organisation is silly. During the transition phase I had (all at the same time) Win95, 98, NT and one using Win3.1 (plus my own running a Win2000 beta). It's too much hassle.

Server spec and cost.
Something half-decent. With onyl six machines you're obviously not running much that actually needs to be on a server but the advantages are certainly there, at least over a peer-to-peer network. Getting something like MS Small Business Server (which will include nice things like Exchange) is no bad idea, if your budget can stretch to it.

Sharing ADSL
You're the perfect business fotr ADSL. When all people do is surf and pick up regular emails you'd be surprised how many machines you can hang off a single ISDN line (if you're using exchange to queue the mails in and out). The watermark for getting a leased 128 line as opposed to pay-per-dial ISDN is about 4 hours use a day. ASDL will be cheaper again though. The router will sort everything out itself if you attach it to the server and set it up properly. Getting a decent firewall is a must though, given that DSL will effectively give your network a permanent connection to the Net.

Every machine using its own dialup to the Internet must be costing you a bloody fortune. Dumping some of these lines will go a long way to paying for DSL.

All I can offer at the moment. No prices mentioned, mostly because any I have won't be current.

Samson · 13-07-2002 3:32pm

Originally posted by sceptre
6 machines isn't too bad. The downside is that because it's only 6 machines your budget may be low.

I didn't make myself very clear on that point.
I'm actually going to network 11 (scattered) workstations and a server, we have more PCs than that but there is no necessity for these to be networked.

Also, what's the difference between a hub and a switch?

bricks · 13-07-2002 4:58pm

Use an old Pentium PC with 2 network cards in it as a firewall.
Install Smoothwall coperate Edition on this machine.
1 of the network cards will plug directly into the ADSL modem and the other will plug into the local lan switch.
Use a 16 port netgear switch.
All IP address's will be automatically assigned by the firewall via DHCP. DNS settings and gateway will automatically be set by the firewall also.
I'd install the cables myself. Run them all back to a patch panel in a closet somewhere. Just make sure you have the right tools.
All PC's should be set to recive IP addreses via DHCP.
Any machines that have PCI slots in them should have their network cards replaced with 100 Meg network cards.
You'll only need a central file server if you have files that need to be shared out to everyone.

sceptre · 13-07-2002 6:52pm

Originally posted by Samson
Also, what's the difference between a hub and a switch?

Quick examples:
http://www.asante.com/support/routerguide/faqs/hardwared.html
http://www.darron.net/network/secondpage.html
http://compnetworking.about.com/library/tips/blfaq011.htm

Pricewise, I did a quick search on microwarehouse.co.uk

Netgear 24port switch was £172, 16port for £109
Netgear 24port hub was £164

Just as an example on the price gap - negligible. Price gap is similar for 3com products as long as you stay away from 1000Mps - faster than you want/need in any case.

SkepticOne · 13-07-2002 6:53pm

I'd recommend a decent machine for the server - the important things being plenty of memory and ideally SCSI RAID disks if your budget can stretch to it. It will make 100Mb networking worthwhile (although things have improved on the IDE front).

Don't forget backup facilities and UPS as you will be blamed if things go pear-shaped.

Avoid peer-to-peer networking as things get messy with the increased number of machines. Set up a proper domain based server with DHCP.

Make sure the electrician knows a bit about laying network cables and has the appropriate tools for crimping tools although you could do the bits at the end if he is unfamiliar.

Samson · 13-07-2002 7:16pm

Originally posted by bricks
Use an old Pentium PC with 2 network cards in it as a firewall.
Install Smoothwall Corporate Edition on this machine.
1 of the network cards will plug directly into the ADSL modem and the other will plug into the local lan switch.

You'll only need a central file server if you have files that need to be shared out to everyone.

I do want to use a fileserver, so I have a couple of questions with regards to this advice:
*Can I install the firewall software on the server? (I imagine I could).
*Would a better solution be to have two machines, a server and a firewall PC?

bricks · 13-07-2002 9:01pm

1 for the firewall could be an old Pentium machine with 32 or 64 meg of memory. If you look on www.smoothwall.org you can download the GPL version for free. The machine will need only a small hard disk in it 200Meg+.

The file server will probably need a good bit of memory 256Meg+. But this depends on the OS your running on it. If you use win2k professional on your server then you can only have a maximum of 10 connections, if you can live with this then win2kpro would work out a lot cheaper. As far as I know Win2k server is fairly expensive. You could just use a regular desktop PC as your server but then if the disk fails in it or it has hardware problems you could be left with no service while you get it repaired. So you probably need to look at Dell/Compaq etc... for a low spec server with a RAID disk in it. You'll probably also need to do backups.

lynchie · 13-07-2002 9:32pm

Originally posted by Samson

I do want to use a fileserver, so I have a couple of questions with regards to this advice:
*Can I install the firewall software on the server? (I imagine I could).
*Would a better solution be to have two machines, a server and a firewall PC?

NEVER use a pc as both a firewall and fileserver - big security risk!

As bricks said, a simple and effective firewall can be setup with an old pentium PC.

In relation to hubs and switches, buy a switch - they're quiet cheap nowadays. I've been running a network with a netgear switch and netgear fa310tx 100mbit nics with no problems for the past two years. They are priced well below the other major brands such as 3com and intel.

Rew · 14-07-2002 12:55am

Originally posted by bricks
The file server will probably need a good bit of memory 256Meg+. But this depends on the OS your running on it. If you use win2k professional on your server then you can only have a maximum of 10 connections, if you can live with this then win2kpro would work out a lot cheaper. [/B]

Linux or other *nix would be free and no client restrictions

definatly have hardware RAID (ide or scsi but i doubt 6 clients are going to tax it much, depending, so IDE is fine and alot cheaper) and a proper backup solution (remember to take backups off site the amount of people wh leave backup media in the same areas as the server is mad!)

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 14-07-2002 3:59pm

Originally posted by Samson
Buy a decent server.
Buy a 3com 100baseT 12 port hub.
Get the place properly cabled (cat5).
Buy decent 100baseT network cards.

I agree with 99% of everything so far - all good advice. Buy a switch - not a hub, and get 10/100 Network cards - the 3com 3c905c are good. You should get the same network card for every PC if you can - it'll make solving problems easier later on.

As for the cabling Cat 5e is the standard now, it'll allow you to upgrade to gigabit ethernet in the future.

*Do I need anything else?
Money

*Where do I find someone (other than our electrician) to do the cabling and what will it cost? our premises is very old and modular, I suspect this will be a whore of a job.

Any good sparky will be able to put in the cables for you, just make sure that you put in a bit more than you need, it's a lot cheaper to put in two runs of cable together than having to get the electrician back to run another cable. Bring all of the cables back to a central point (preferably near where all your comms stuff is) and patch them to a patch panel. A good make of all things cables is Krone - you can buy them here - http://www.woodcomm.ie/
Another good company for network stuff is http://www.blackbox.co.uk/
Once you have the cables back at the patch panel you'll be able to patch them your self, it's piss easy.

*Should I upgrade the PC operating systems so that they all match? (some are Win95, some Win98, some WinME; I'm thinking Win2000).

If you can put them on 2000, but that's going to cost you for the licence and maybe a bit of hardware for some of the PCs.

*What sort of spec. server should I need and what will it cost?

I've always found Dell servers to be good, you can get a good one for under €2000. The things not to skimp on are RAM (512MB), a decent network card and a SCSI HD if you can. Don't waste money on the latest and greatest processor - 99% of the time it'll be sitting there idle - a PIII would be fine.

http://www.euro.dell.com/countries/ie/enu/bsd/products/model_pedsc_pedge_1400sc.htm

I'd go with Win 2000 Server as a domain controller with DNS/WINS/DHCP.

*How do I share the ADSL access between people?

I'd use one of these: http://www.adslguide.org.uk/hardware/reviews/2001/q4/zyxel_prestige643.asp

Other people have suggested using a Linux firewall, but unless your comfortable using it, I'd get a hardware one for the moment.

Also for your TCP/IP you should set it up something like this:

ADSL Router will have two IPs, one 'real' and one private address. It'll then do NAT for your internal network. Set the internal IP to: 10.10.10.1 / 255.255.255.0

Then set your server up with:
IP: 10.10.10.2
Subnet: 255.255.255.0
Default Gateway: 10.10.10.1

Setup DNS on your server with forwarders to your ISPs DNS servers - 159.134.237.6 and 159.134.237.59 for Eircom.net

Then setup DHCP on your server with a scope:
IP: 10.10.10.10 - 254
Subnet: 255.255.255.0
Gateway: 10.10.10.1
DNS: 10.10.10.2
WINS: 10.10.10.2

Samson · 14-07-2002 4:17pm

Some good advice there lads, thanks.

One question on what you said Ronan, why would it be better to wire my cable into a patch panel rather than putting an RJ45 on each and just plugging them into the switch?

Another question I just thought of:
What is the furthest that any workstation can be from the switch/hub?

sceptre · 14-07-2002 5:53pm

Originally posted by Samson
One question on what you said Ronan, why would it be better to wire my cable into a patch panel rather than putting an RJ45 on each and just plugging them into the switch?

Convenience and neatness mostly. Let's say you have a 16port hub and you put in a few extra cables just because you can (future-proofing and all that). Don't forget that if it turns out you need just one more point in an office, relatively speaking it'll cost you a fortune to put it in later. Hard to tell which cable is which when you're in your cupboard. And you may want some connected only some of the time. The patch panel is basically an easy way of telling which is which - and getting rid of the risk of anything getting damaged. I'm putting a switch into my father's house at home. It'll only have five cables in so I won't bother. Any more and I wouldn't consider it any other way. Cost is tiny compared to the benefits. What you'll do is put the regular RJ45 connection on the end of each cable and pop that into the patch panel, where they'll be left permanently. Short patch cables will connect the desired points to the hub from there.

Another question I just thought of:
What is the furthest that any workstation can be from the switch/hub?

Long enough that you won't have to worry about it. To keep everything at 100Mps, about 100m max (that's cable length, not as a tiny crow would fly). There are ways around that too, if it's a problem.

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 14-07-2002 7:55pm

As sceptre says, it's neater and easier to find the cables. It also means you can use the cables for other things - such as patching phones into a phone system.

If you don't intend on buying a rack cabinet for all this stuff, you can attach the patch panel to a wall with one of these.

You should also patch the cables at the far into outlets on the wall or floor boxes if you have a raised floor. That'll stop you having to run a whole length of cable if someone damages the cable at their desk - you'll only have to change the cable between the PC and the wall.

sceptre · 14-07-2002 8:36pm

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man
You should also patch the cables at the far into outlets on the wall or floor boxes if you have a raised floor. That'll stop you having to run a whole length of cable if someone damages the cable at their desk - you'll only have to change the cable between the PC and the wall.

Blast. Should have mentioned that (but obvious to someone who's done it so I didn't think of it)

Very important.

Samson · 17-07-2002 8:30pm

I'd like your opinion on this idea lads.

Having looked at the cabling scenario in the office, I am thinking I might be better off doing the following:

Instead of installing a standard network card in each PC, I might go for a total (almost) RF solution.
As I said in my first post (in this thread) I already have two PCs talking peer to peer with 11Mb RF network cards.
Now, initially I had some problems with the comms between the two (large metal object directly between them) but I eventually got it sorted out by installing an RF access point.

So, what I'm thinking is, if I get another access point and wire both up to my switch, I should have enough coverage for all the PCs except one which I can wire to the switch using Cat5e cable.

My network will thus comprise:
ADSL box (can't remember what you call it, might be a router)
Firewall
Server
Switch
RF access point x 2
9 clients with Orinoco RF network cards talking to access points
1 client wired to switch

How does that sound ?

It will certainly be a handier solution than going down the cabling route, but how will it compare with a "proper" network ?

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 17-07-2002 8:44pm

It'll work perfectly, the only difference will be the bandwidth. You'll have five PCs sharing an 11Mb connection instead of 100Mb each. It all comes down to what you want to do with the network, if your only going to be copying over the odd file or downloading your email it'll be fine but if your planning on downloading large files or doing network intensive stuff you'd be better off with cables.

BTW D-Link do wireless cards now that are 22Mb and they're backwards compatible with the 11Mb ones:

http://www.dlink.com/products/DigitalHome/Wireless/11b+/11b+Wireless.asp

Samson · 17-07-2002 10:58pm

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man
the only difference will be the bandwidth. You'll have five PCs sharing an 11Mb connection instead of 100Mb each. It all comes down to what you want to do with the network, if your only going to be copying over the odd file or downloading your email it'll be fine but if your planning on downloading large files or doing network intensive stuff you'd be better off with cables.

Okay, I knew there would be a difference in bandwidth, 11Mb versus 100Mb.
But, I'm confused on the other aspect Ronan, you say that 5 PCs will be sharing 11Mb rather than having 100Mb each, why will each PC not have 11Mb bandwidth back to whatever else is attached to the switch ?
Does it then come down to the capacity of the access point ?

The access point is a Teklogix 9150.
http://partners.psionteklogix.com/ptxcms/CORE.asp?s=com&p=Products&pCat=21&pID=168

Rew · 18-07-2002 8:51am

The bandwith is shared between the Access Point and clients... its easy to swamp a AP, i swamped one by plugging it in to a busy hub instead of a switch...

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 18-07-2002 10:20am

The APs work in a broadcast environment, so they work like a hub rather than a switch. Bandwidth is shared between all of the connecting clients. They're also half duplex as opposed to switches, which are full duplex.

Defenistrator · 18-07-2002 10:41am

Samson,

from your post it is obvious that you don'e have a clue what you are supposed do do, no offence intended. Personally I woul not go looking for snippets of information on how to set up a company network on boards.ie. Not that I doubt that the peeps here on boards know what they are talking about, on the contrary, boards IS a good source of information. But you cannot expect to solve a complete analasys of your needs based on a posting.

for instance you mention that you need a server, have you given ANY ythought as to what the role of the server is going to be, what will the server have to manage in the near-medium-distant future? will you go with a cheap one now and have to replace it in a year's time. What are your customers (users) expecting? what is your budget?

I have seen people set up IT companies based on the fact that they thought they could ask anything they didn't know on the internet, they have now gone belly up. Trust me it just doesn't work. Get yourself someone who knows what they are doing, and pay them to sort it out for you. simple as that.

D.

Rew · 18-07-2002 10:50am

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man
The APs work in a broadcast environment, so they work like a hub rather than a switch. Bandwidth is shared between all of the connecting clients. They're also half duplex as opposed to switches, which are full duplex.

You will have to explain that one to me..?

the hub will basicly repeats all data to all ports and the AP will broadcast everything it gets on its ethernet interface right? so if its broadcasting all that how is that better then only broadcasting the packets destined for the wireless clients?

the preformance of the AP i was using was definatly affected when it was in a hub as opposed to a switch but it was only a once off so maybe there were other reasons....

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 18-07-2002 12:05pm

Say you have 5 clients on an AP (with no other network attached) and client A wants to connect to client B. First client A connects to the AP, then the AP sends out a broadcast, client B then responds to the AP and the AP sends another broadcast for client A. These broadcasts continue on and on until the connection finishes.

The APs work in the same way as a hub - it broadcasts to all clients, every client must process the data, see if it's for itself and then either process or ignore it. In a switched environment the data coming down the cable will always be desintined for that client (except for broadcasts etc), this reduces the overhead on the client.

At the end of the day it comes down to what you want to do with the network. If it's looking up the Internet then go WiFi, if it's downloading huge files etc then go wired.

Rew · 18-07-2002 12:47pm

em.... that dosnt even come close to explaining why u should plug AP's in to a hub instead of a switch...

I still think that a busy hub will swamp the AP by forcing it to broadcast stuff that was destined for wired machines.... thats assuming the AP is just bridgeing wired to wireless.....

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 18-07-2002 1:55pm

Originally posted by Rew
em.... that dosnt even come close to explaining why u should plug AP's in to a hub instead of a switch...

That wasn't what I was trying to explain, I was comparing the benefits of having a switch with wires into each PC v an AP with a wireless connection into a PC. (Nothing to do with a hub/switch into an AP - it's fairly obvious that your better off with a switch instead of a hub in any situation)

Rew · 18-07-2002 2:04pm

My aploigies i misunderstood your orignal post, thought you were saying that it was better to plug an AP in to a hub...

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 18-07-2002 2:09pm

The way I usually explain things I wouldn't blame you

Samson · 22-07-2002 9:11am

A little bit of an update and another question:

Having done a survey of our PCs, I don't think it would be possible to put Win2K on each machine without significant CPU/MoBo upgrades (some are AMD K6), so what I have decided to do is put Win98 on all and upgrade the RAM/HDD to 256mb and min. 10gb so that all are reasonably decent.

As far as the server goes I'm going to buy a Dell 1400SC and put Win2K on it.
Which would be the better OS option for the server?
Microsoft OEM Windows 2000 Server €38.01 +VAT
or
Microsoft OEM Windows 2000 Professional +SP2 €173.55 +VAT

WhiteWashMan · 22-07-2002 10:03am

um, 2k server is obviously going to be better.
havent read the rest of the thread, but setting up a small network is not hard.
the difference between a hub and a switch (ok, i read some bits) is that a switch is more intelligent than a hub and will cut down on unnessecary network noise, not really an issue when you have a network so small, but still probably better off with a switch.
if you feel some of your machines are too old, better off to buy a new one from dell for about 500 quid, as they will be far superior and in the long run, you are upgrading anyway, so you have assets.
the server doesnt have to be kick ass. any low end server will do if all you need it for is for a bit of network administration, dhcp and dns services, internet access and file storage.
dont foget to add a back-up solution. tape drive or whatever.
if you are upgrading any systems that have mission critical softwarre on them that they are upgradable. last thing youw ant is the hassle of reinstalling an OS so you can reinstall sage or something.

um, thats it really.
its easy peasy

sceptre · 22-07-2002 7:20pm

The main difference between 2k server and pro is the number of connections that can be established to either. Pro won't handle more than 10 connections at once - Server will. Given that you've more than 10 PCs, seems like a no-brainer (that's before considering what services / components will only run on Server).

The Cigarette Smoking Man · 22-07-2002 10:09pm

Originally posted by Samson
As far as the server goes I'm going to buy a Dell 1400SC and put Win2K on it.
Which would be the better OS option for the server?
Microsoft OEM Windows 2000 Server €38.01 +VAT
or
Microsoft OEM Windows 2000 Professional +SP2 €173.55 +VAT

Put on W2K Server with service pack 2 and all the patches, you'll probably want to use Active Directory/DHCP/DNS/WINS at some point and you don't get any of that with W2K Pro. You should get 512MB RAM too.

(BTW those Dell servers are great - very well built. You press a button on the front and the side pops open making it really easy to add RAM, HDs etc. They also have the new 64bit PCI slots.)

Office network, need a lot of help

Comments