Trials and tribulations of a new Admin.

nutcase · 5 Sep 2016 at 14:06

Thanks I'll look at imgur.

Jumbo frames aren't enabled (one day...)

I now have no dropped packets in the link between the switch and the veeam repo but still having the same issue between the hyper-v server and the switch.

Both are Broadcom (331i and 332i are HPE names)

ChrisD. · 5 Sep 2016 at 14:07

Switchport stats??

nutcase · 5 Sep 2016 at 18:32

Not sure why it says lacp enabled.

ifIndex 19
Port Type Normal
Port Channel ID Disable
Port Role Designated
STP Mode Enable
STP State Forwarding
Admin Mode Enable
Flow Control Mode Disable
LACP Mode Enable
Physical Mode Auto
Physical Status 1000 Mbps
Link Status Link Up
Link Trap Enable
Packets RX and TX 64 Octets 437178841
Packets RX and TX 65-127 Octets 47022406
Packets RX and TX 128-255 Octets 9528284
Packets RX and TX 256-511 Octets 4549171
Packets RX and TX 512-1023 Octets 3904132
Packets RX and TX 1024-1518 Octets 1732503071
Packets RX and TX 1519-2047 Octets 0
Packets RX and TX 2048-4095 Octets 0
Packets RX and TX 4096-9216 Octets 0
Octets Received 1189081540207
Packets Received 64 Octets 422535301
Packets Received 65-127 Octets 45472749
Packets Received 128-255 Octets 6138362
Packets Received 256-511 Octets 3393775
Packets Received 512-1023 Octets 2818597
Packets Received 1024-1518 Octets 760823578
Packets Received > 1518 Octets 0
Total Packets Received Without Errors 1241182362
Unicast Packets Received 1241141636
Multicast Packets Received 26249
Broadcast Packets Received 14477
Receive Packets Discarded 0
Total Packets Received with MAC Errors 0
Jabbers Received 0
Fragments Received 0
Undersize Received 0
Alignment Errors 0
Rx FCS Errors 0
Overruns 0
Total Received Packets Not Forwarded 0
802.3x Pause Frames Received 0
Unacceptable Frame Type 0

Total Packets Transmitted (Octets) 1476878822537
Packets Transmitted 64 Octets 14643540
Packets Transmitted 65-127 Octets 1549657
Packets Transmitted 128-255 Octets 3389922
Packets Transmitted 256-511 Octets 1155396
Packets Transmitted 512-1023 Octets 1085535
Packets Transmitted 1024-1518 Octets 971679493
Packets Transmitted > 1518 Octets 0
Maximum Frame Size 1518
Total Packets Transmitted Successfully 993503543
Unicast Packets Transmitted 989396318
Multicast Packets Transmitted 1400441
Broadcast Packets Transmitted 2706784
Transmit Packets Discarded 18832
Total Transmit Errors 0

Total Transmit Packets Discarded 0
Single Collision Frames 0
Multiple Collision Frames 0
Excessive Collision Frames 0

Dropped Transmit Frames 18832
STP BPDUs Received 0
STP BPDUs Transmitted 0
RSTP BPDUs Received 0
RSTP BPDUs Transmitted 44388
MSTP BPDUs Received 0
MSTP BPDUs Transmitted 0
802.3x Pause Frames Transmitted 0
EAPOL Frames Received 0
EAPOL Frames Transmitted 0
Time Since Counters Last Cleared 8 day 0 hr 27 min 52 sec

nutcase · 5 Sep 2016 at 20:08

Rotor, would you mind editing your post that quotes the original picture links

Thanks

nutcase · 6 Sep 2016 at 08:01

One more item to add to the pile (and a very big pile it is) is our P-WAN renewal is coming up. Another company that supplies our IP Phones has said they can reduce our costs significantly (~30%) with no install costs. We currently have 3 sites with fibre, and 4 with EFM.

Turns out they're offering FTTC for all but a couple of sites. When the current setup was being planned, FTTC wasn't considered because because there was no SLA, no guarantees on bandwidth contention or priority.

The telephone supplier are saying they can offer 22hour fix (with backup ADSL as we have currently), and QoS for our traffic as well as traffic type QoS. Our current supplier still only offers FTTC as one step up on a domestic product. Currently we have 4 or 9 hour fix for our primary circuits.

Two sites have the cabinet within spitting distance so we are offered the full 80/20 rate. Which is WAY over our needs (head office has 20mbit and rarely hits it)

Has anyone looked at FTTC as an alternative to traditional leased lines? Are they a viable alternative now? I'm very sceptical as what we have now works very well indeed but that kind of saving is not to be sniffed at. The supplier before the one we have now we had awful latencies etc. and I *really* don't want to go back to those days!

#Chri5# · 6 Sep 2016 at 08:16

Ethernet over FTTC (aka GEA–FTTC) might fit your needs. Better SLA than regular FTTC. Some suppliers will cap it to make it an symmetric service (20/20).

Edit - I previously put "asymmetric service" - typo

ov_sjo · 6 Sep 2016 at 08:57

What's a P-WAN?

Quartz · 6 Sep 2016 at 10:24

#Chri5# said:
Some suppliers will cap it to make it an asymmetric service (20/20).

Isn't that a symmetric service?

#Chri5# · 6 Sep 2016 at 12:48

Quartz said:
Isn't that a symmetric service?

Sorry, typo

#Chri5# · 6 Sep 2016 at 12:49

ov_sjo said:
What's a P-WAN?

Private WAN

ov_sjo · 6 Sep 2016 at 13:22

#Chri5# said:
Private WAN

Oh, MPLS.

nutcase · 6 Sep 2016 at 14:32

ov_sjo said:
Oh, MPLS.

I gather it's an interchangible term yes

Apparently the FTTC they're offering isn't GEA. All will be revealed soon. Apparently.

ov_sjo · 6 Sep 2016 at 14:55

You will get more latency with a *dsl circuit than a dedicated fibre (even MPLS), however from my experience with 13-14ms over dsl I do not have an issue with VoIP.

Deleted member 138126 · 8 Sep 2016 at 17:52

nutcase_1uk said:
Rotor, would you mind editing your post that quotes the original picture links Thanks

Done. Sorry it took me a while.

Caged · 8 Sep 2016 at 20:50

I'm not aware of FTTC that isn't GEA, but that might just be me being unaware.

There's no reason why FTTC can't do the job - if they are providing managed routers and it's all sitting in their private network so there is no congestion issues between sites and QoS tags are maintained then it's a nicer option than something like EFM because it doesn't cost a fortune for something dog slow. The Ethernet FTTC vendors I see tend to guarantee you whatever the upload speed is as the symmetric speed of the service and then you can flex to whatever the sync rate is, so it's a nice low-cost option and still quick enough for smaller sites.

Just make sure the provider can maintain a full 1500 byte MTU throughout and you're golden.

nutcase · 9 Sep 2016 at 08:14

Thanks Guys

Little_Crow · 9 Sep 2016 at 12:15

Been having some fun with a config document involving failover and load balancing yesterday.
I've now found out that with the right equipment you can potentially use more than a single NIC's bandwidth between 2 IP's with LACP.

The catch is that LACP has to operate at Layer 4 so the algorithm used will also balance based on the TCP/UDP ports in use - so if you have multiple data flows on different ports, you're in luck.

I don't know if this is widely supported on sensibly priced switches or not. Our switches don't, but something like a Cisco Nexus does...

ov_sjo · 9 Sep 2016 at 15:43

Single session constraint with LACP is well understood.

Caged · 9 Sep 2016 at 19:27

I believe the HP 2920 series switches can do L4 load balancing across LACP trunks.

nutcase · 13 Sep 2016 at 08:54

I'm trying to get cost comparisons of the 2920 with modules vs. a 5130 24G 4SFP+ EI - more of a core switch for small business than the Aruba which is more aimed towards an access switch with additional WiFi support which we only have limited wifi.

Meanwhile I'm still looking through how everything is set up. Found that 99% of the user folders were owned by administrator with individual permissions to allow the required access. So that's all been sorted with CREATOR OWNER etc.

Same with the email archive folders (still need to sort those out, about 10% of my days are spent running ScanPst...

Trials and tribulations of a new Admin.

Deleted member 138126

Deleted member 138126