Gigabit over copper

[1KrazyFool]

We are looking to give our file server a boost by installing a gigabit card into it, currently it runs 100BT. The switch it will connect to is a Catalyst 3548-XL, so we can either use 1. copper or 2. SX laser. The copper option looks nice since we can get the GBIC and NIC for ~$450. The SX option is ~$750 or so, because we already have an SX GBIC to use on the switch. On our campus, there is currently no server using gigE over copper, only SX NICs, and I think it would be neat to explore copper since it is cheaper than SX. Money really is not an object, we can swing the SX NIC fine, it's just why do it with SX if we can do it cheaper with Cu?

The server is running Novell 4.11 at the moment and it's a Gateway (don't laugh, I didn't buy it) 7200 ALR, P2-350, 128MB RAM (we'll upgrade), umm like 9x9GB RAID 50 array, etc. We are looking towards getting rid of Novell sometime, either going to Windows 2000 or maybe Solaris x86. Of course, now that I look at, it seems like we should buy a new server. Oh well.

So if we go with gigabit over copper, I see two choice for NICs:
Intel 1000T
3com 3c996-T

According to the online docs, it looks like the Intel NIC will work in the 32-bit/33Mhz PCI slots the server has. The 3com says it needs a PCI 2.2 compliant server, which ours isn't. But will it work anyways? That's one issue I'm confused on. If it won't, we can go Intel.

So in a nutshell, should we go with GigE over Cu? If so, which NIC?

Thanks

 

[Garion]

I hate to say this, but you're probably not going to get much bang-for-the-buck going gigabit - That PII just won't be able to keep up with it. Spend your pennies on a new server right now, then go gigabit. If you need more performance out of what you've got, get a second NIC and using Cisco's Fast EtherChannel to trunk them together.

Tests have proven the Intel to be the top choice for gigabit NICS - Go with it when you do gig.

- G

 

[Xanathar]

I dont suppose you have a link for a Cisco GBIC for Gig over copper, Last I checked (~2-3 months ago) Cisco GBICs came in LX, SX, ZX (all fiber, varying on length and single/multimode) and Stacking (copper, but only for GBIC to GBIC). I do not recall seeing a GBIC-Host Cat5e Adapter.

 

[L3Guy]

I agree;

Informal tests have shown that a PCI bus faster than standard is required to get speeds in excess of 200 to 250 Mbps. I would forget the gig nic until you have a server class machine.

AS far as running GIG over copper, I would not do it if you have to run to a different room / floor. Not that its not possible, but the cabling is critical enough that I want a single patch cable to connect my server to the switch if I'm running GIG. That just my preference.



<< . We are looking towards getting rid of Novell sometime >>


I haven't seen a good business reason to switch NOS. If Novell is working for you, why switch?

Hope this helps;

Doug

 

[1KrazyFool]

Xanathar:
The part # is WS-G5482 and here's the link:
Cisco 1000-T GBIC

Thanks for the general comments. I'm not looking to get near 1000Mbps from it, just at least 250 or so. A new server is probably in the scope for next year, not the current one. So going Gig now would provide some relief until then, and the Gig NIC can go in a new machine.

RE: NOS

It is a campus (I work for a University) initiative to rid ourselves of Novell. Not exactly my call, I just do what the elders tell me.

 

[Tallgeese]

<< I haven't seen a good business reason to switch NOS. If Novell is working for you, why switch? >>

I received a reminder this week that Novell is slated to EOL NetWare 4.11 for good by the end of the year. They extended the EOL date for 5.0 until March or so of 2002, to give folks more time to update to 5.1 or 6.0.

Some business reasons I've seen to switch platforms are:

1.) No more support for Oracle on NetWare.
2.) Licensing costs for multiple servers.
3.) Sh*tty client software (this has really been a nightmare over the last 2 years).
4.) Buggy OS patches (which usually require even worse client software, see last point).
5.) W2K Terminal Services (which can be done in a NetWare environment for sure, but means loading Novell client software, see #3 above).

BTW: This is not meant to start any kind of NOS holy war or anything like that. I'm equally conversant in M$ and Novell products, and favor what works best and most cost-effectively for the task at hand.

 

[macssuck]

&quot;I received a reminder this week that Novell is slated to EOL NetWare 4.11 for good by the end of the year. They extended the EOL date for 5.0 until March or so of 2002, to give folks more time to update to 5.1 or 6.0.&quot;

does this mean are 3.12 server is already eol

 

[L3Guy]

<< This is not meant to start any kind of NOS holy war or anything like that >>



Points well taken. I am also somewhat familiar with both, and not in love with either.
My point that switching NOS costs money in training and planning, to name just two.
Just not something an organization should do lightly. Or just because its fashionable.

Peace.

Doug