Typical PC hardware of the current generation can more than saturate a 1gb link. From what I've seen on this list, most people have deployed hardware that is certainly capable of servicing 750-1000 clients if the OS and apps are properly tuned.<br>
<br>Of course if you're going to be servicing that many wireless clients, you'll want a higher-end VAN-able WLAN setup. That'll REALLY blow the budget. :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:22 PM, John Watlington <<a href="mailto:wad@laptop.org">wad@laptop.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Apr 24, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:38 PM, John Watlington<br>
> <<a href="mailto:wad@media.mit.edu">wad@media.mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Proposed change to the hardware spec:<br>
>><br>
>> From one to four access points may use an simpler switch,<br>
>> connected to the server over a 100 Mb/s link. From five to seven<br>
>> access points will need a better switch, which provides a 1 GB/s<br>
>> link to the server.<br>
>><br>
>> This means that a 1 GB/s interface should be specified for the<br>
>> servers.<br>
><br>
> Theoretically, yes... but perhaps this is a bit over the top. For the<br>
> space we are aiming...<br>
><br>
> - the XS services will bottleneck well before saturating 1Gb/s<br>
> traffic<br>
> - 'upstream' services that the XS is routing will bottleneck well<br>
> before 1Gb/s<br>
><br>
> if we see a 7-AP setup, it will be there to support either a large<br>
> number of laptops or a location with obstacles that needs many<br>
> antennaes. In any case, it will support laptops mostly peering w<br>
> each other.<br>
<br>
</div>Wrong. Right now all collaboration moves through the ejabberd server.<br>
We hope to change that, but it won't happen for roughly a year.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> If we are designing for a "client base" of laptops that we actually<br>
> expect to saturate 1Gb, then... we need to start recommending a<br>
> mid-range server cluster, perhaps a SAN, all costing a few megabucks<br>
> ;-)<br>
<br>
</div>But a school of 250 students will need at least five access points.<br>
It only takes two laptops to saturate a channel (OK, maybe one).<br>
So you are saying that squid or apache can't keep up with feeding<br>
ten streams at 11+ Mb/s each ?<br>
<br>
wad<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Server-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Server-devel@lists.laptop.org">Server-devel@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Aaron Huslage - 503.860.1634<br><a href="http://blog.hact.net">http://blog.hact.net</a><br>IM: AIM - ahuslage; Yahoo - ahuslage; MSN - <a href="mailto:huslage@gmail.com">huslage@gmail.com</a>; GTalk - <a href="mailto:huslage@gmail.com">huslage@gmail.com</a>