[nintenda]

Hi. I have a short story and a few questions for anyone with the knowledge, who'd have the patience to read it.

My wife's small company is currently sharing (with 3 other very small companies) what appears to be a 1.5Mbps/1.1Mbps connection (via Broadview T1) run off a Linksys WRT-54G (stock) across about 15 users, about 20 VoIP lines. They run one cheap netgear 24 port switch, with maybe 4 or 5 4-8 port cheapie hubs scattered throughout. All of this was run by the builder, who seems to have substituted cat5 for cat5e, as I cannot get gigabit signal anywhere on the network. The poor little router is so overworked, that it takes like 30 seconds for the web interface to load. Their web browsing is slow. In short, the network f-ing blows.

My wife's company is moving to the suite next door, and I thought this was a great time to upgrade their infrastructure... add a NAS (since they largely work on a shared file base). I was going to run cat6 thoughout, replace the router with an Asus RT-N16 running dd-wrt, upgrade to a decent switch (and centralize the switching).

The question I had was how much external bandwidth do they need. The 4 companies are considering continuing to share their WAN uplink. Currently, the 50Mbps/5Mbps DOCSIS3 cable uplink is what I suggested. Will that be sufficient for this number of users?

Also, what kind of switching architecture should I expect to have to install, in order to prevent a bottleneck, considering that I'll be dealing with about 25 users, 25 VoIP lines, and perhaps 60-80 ethernet devices (including the VoIP phones).

[Immerymopay]

All of the mentioned companies currently operate on that 1.5/1 mb line ?

If so, the upgrade to 50/5mb line and the other changes you mentioned should be fine unless they do heavy uploading.

[wmzeto]

All of the mentioned companies currently operate on that 1.5/1 mb line ?

Yeah, It's pretty unbelievable.

If so, the upgrade to 50/5mb line and the other changes you mentioned should be fine unless they do heavy uploading.

What about the LAN gear? I assume I don't need $$$ managed Cisco switches for this setup?

[jeockammece]

Yeah, It's pretty unbelievable.

What about the LAN gear? I assume I don't need $$$ managed Cisco switches for this setup?

Make sure you buy decent gear but you don't want to overspend.

Even if you just upgrade the internet it going to be a massive improvement.

1.5/1 !?

That's just crazy slow for even 5 users, let alone alone all those people.

[sleepergun]

Yeah, It's pretty unbelievable.

What about the LAN gear? I assume I don't need $$$ managed Cisco switches for this setup?

Get linksys stuff. It's made by Cisco and more affordable.

If you're buying new get gigabit stuff, but if there is already a 10/100 network in place it won't matter. Your maximum total throughput (if only one person was using the connection) would be 50mbps so plenty of overhead left.

[unlomarma]

Get linksys stuff. It's made by Cisco and more affordable.

If you're buying new get gigabit stuff, but if there is already a 10/100 network in place it won't matter. Your maximum total throughput (if only one person was using the connection) would be 50mbps so plenty of overhead left.

Got all gigabit stuff. Got a switch, the asus router (already dd-wrt on it), and cabling, mount boxes and all the tools (thanks Monoprice).

Made my first set of ethernet cables today, basically to learn how to do it. Pain in the ass, but they get >70mbps on their current 100mbps network, which is pretty good from what I understand, since their previous wiring doesn't even reach 60.

[diundasmink]

Get linksys stuff. It's made by Cisco and more affordable.

If you're buying new get gigabit stuff, but if there is already a 10/100 network in place it won't matter. Your maximum total throughput (if only one person was using the connection) would be 50mbps so plenty of overhead left.

I'd agree. However, if they're large files being constantly written and read it'd be more productive to go 1Gb, and recoup costs pretty quickly down the line instead of wasting 20-30 mins a day twiddling thumbs or browsing FB waiting for a file to open.

[polleroy]

I'd agree. However, if they're large files being constantly written and read it'd be more productive to go 1Gb, and recoup costs pretty quickly down the line instead of wasting 20-30 mins a day twiddling thumbs or browsing FB waiting for a file to open.

It's going to be a new office. I'm replacing all the Cat5 with Cat6. They use lots of large image files, so it should be a huge difference.

[beloveds]

Got all gigabit stuff. Got a switch, the asus router (already dd-wrt on it), and cabling, mount boxes and all the tools (thanks Monoprice).

Made my first set of ethernet cables today, basically to learn how to do it. Pain in the ass, but they get >70mbps on their current 100mbps network, which is pretty good from what I understand, since their previous wiring doesn't even reach 60.

You not got the cabling tool? It only takes me a few seconds to put the end on a cable now.

[Eujacwta]

You not got the cabling tool? It only takes me a few seconds to put the end on a cable now.

I've always found it's fiddly sometimes to get the wires in the correct order, and keeping them in order, as you put them into the RJ45.

[fuslssdfaa]

You not got the cabling tool? It only takes me a few seconds to put the end on a cable now.

What tool? I've got a cutter, stripper, crimper.

I have cat6-rated plugs with inserts. It takes me a couple of minutes to position all the wires inside the insert before I can crimp.

I've always found it's fiddly sometimes to get the wires in the correct order, and keeping them in order, as you put them into the RJ45.

That's why I use plugs with inserts. Eliminates the need to hold the wires carefully inside the plug.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/pr...seq=1&format=2

[Uhmavano]

Got all gigabit stuff. Got a switch, the asus router (already dd-wrt on it), and cabling, mount boxes and all the tools (thanks Monoprice).

Made my first set of ethernet cables today, basically to learn how to do it. Pain in the ass, but they get >70mbps on their current 100mbps network, which is pretty good from what I understand, since their previous wiring doesn't even reach 60.

I have a feeling you might still run into browsing issues with that router. Take a look at its maximum simultaneous connections...200 is pretty low for that many users.

[makemoneyonli]

I have a feeling you might still run into browsing issues with that router. Take a look at its maximum simultaneous connections...200 is pretty low for that many users.

Something seems wrong with that, given the price, and the hardware. I wonder whether things would look different with dd wrt on it (already blew away the native firmware).

[Adeniinteme]

I have a feeling you might still run into browsing issues with that router. Take a look at its maximum simultaneous connections...200 is pretty low for that many users.

That's with the stock firmware though, right? DD-WRT should up that count. The stock ASUS firmware is pretty limited.

Edit: For small business use, I usually go with something like a Cisco ASA-5505. For gigabit switches I have had good luck with Cisco Small Business line and even better luck with Netgear GS724T.

Edit 2: At home I use an ASUS gigabit switch and an ASUS RT-N16. Been pleased with both.

[Klorissana]

That's with the stock firmware though, right? DD-WRT should up that count. The stock ASUS firmware is pretty limited.

Yes, stock firmware. DD-WRT should be better of course, but I'm just going by the fact that # of connections is usually a memory limitation. I'm sure DD-WRT will have more efficient memory utilization, but in the end you still have a finite amount.

I don't know if he will have problems, I think it's just worth mentioning.

[freeringtonesioo]

Yes, stock firmware. DD-WRT should be better of course, but I'm just going by the fact that # of connections is usually a memory limitation. I'm sure DD-WRT will have more efficient memory utilization, but in the end you still have a finite amount.

I don't know if he will have problems, I think it's just worth mentioning.

Doesn't really make sense, given its absolutely enormous RAM (for a router).

[Qualarrizab]

Yeah it has plenty of memory, 128MB IIRC. It's limitations really stem from the stock firmware. That's why it's so heavily advertised that it supports DD-WRT.

[forexsoft]

Doesn't really make sense, given its absolutely enormous RAM (for a router).

I'm not familiar with that router's specs, so if it does indeed have a large memory capacity (comparatively similar to some of the routers at the top of those charts that can hold tens of thousands of connections), then it's probably just a firmware issue and DD will take care of that.

[Hitfaromarf]

I'm not familiar with that router's specs, so if it does indeed have a large memory capacity (comparatively similar to some of the routers at the top of those charts that can hold tens of thousands of connections), then it's probably just a firmware issue and DD will take care of that.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=404846
DD WRT increases connections to 4096 capped by default, but as the router has vast amounts of memory that can apparently easily be upped to >10'000 with a simple command that tells the firmware about the large memory set.

[Kamepherype]

http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=404846
DD WRT increases connections to 4096 capped by default, but as the router has vast amounts of memory that can apparently easily be upped to >10'000 with a simple command that tells the firmware about the large memory set.

Interesting...looks like you should have no problems then. I can't believe how crappy the stock firmware is, though.