I install wireless networks professionally and I can pick out a handful of factors that will make or break your decision:
1....in mid-town Manhattan 2. The new space is on one floor... 3....100+ users to begin, 200 capacity... 4....(probably running over VPN for security).... 5....there is a web application hosted off site.
Issue 1: RF Interference Addressing item #1, how much square footage do you anticipate these 100+ people using? According to item #2, you intend to accomplish this on one floor, and given that you are in mid-town Manhattan, I imagine a small office footprint.
At first blush, this sounds like a recipe for disaster--at least as far as I understand what you are doing. First of all, just being able to service X number of wireless users per access points is not enough. You have to consider how the RF field being put out by each AP will overlap others. In the US there are 11 channels for 802.11b/g and only 3 do not overlap (at least enough for it to matter practically); too much inter-accesspoint overlap will cause a sever drop in throughput--APs will be fighting each other's RF output. You may find yourself at the very least having to dial back each AP's power output significantly just to get clients to associate reliably. Also bear in mind that given you will be on a single floor, your RF output will extend three dimensionally to upper and lower floors if you are using directional antennas. This is not just an issue for your neighbors, but also with multipath distortion.
Issue 2: Latency You mention that your network will "probably running over VPN for security" which will add to the already high latency of a wireless network. The overhead involved in setting up a connection on a wireless network and transmitting in a timely manner is exhorbitant by comparison to Ethernet. Add to that an even higher overhead for a VPN (even hardware accelerated) and you've got a recipe for disaster on all but the most tolerant user base. Item #5--your off-site web app--is likely to cause serious headache.
Latency will be a major factor if you intend on doing any amount of VoIP or video conferencing, and this traffic will require traffic shaping too.
Issue 3: Throughput The reality is that we are still in a "Pre N" world. The very maximum you can squeeze out of your 802.11g network is around 22Mbps overall. And here's another fact that a lot of admins don't know: as soon as you associate 1--just 1--802.11b client to that g network, your total maximum throughput drops immediately to 8Mbps. Compare this to Gigabit Ethernet in performance vs. cost.
My suggestion is to design a wireless network that will properly cover the office space, but cable Ethernet drops for key locations such as stationary offices and conference areas that are likely to see a lot of consistent use. Users should be able to roam about the office, but have a drop at their disposal if their application demands it. Your users will be happier, you will be happier, and you won't run the risk of cooking your staff with all those microwaves.:D
The G.711 codec is capable of a carrier grade phone call... even G.729 is passable for business, but not without Quality of Service. I am consistently surprised at how many small businesses want VoIP *just* to being using it. They don't want a network survey done before they have it installed, and then complain when it doesn't sound like their CO lines or TDM.
The biggest failing of Voice over IP is not the standard itself, but the network its run on. Most people still don't understand that putting voice on a network drastically affects not just the level of traffic/congestion, but that the quality of their phone call relies on how well their network performs. They just don't see the correlation... until we explain why their call to their IP phones in India over DSL sounds like a tin bucket being dropped down stairs.
;i did indeed read that paragraph, and i linked to it precisely because google does distribute their software, at least at some level. the more technically accurate question then, i suppose, is whether *distributed* google products run modded linux.
"The downside to cheap machines is, you have to make them work together reliably," Hoelzle said. "These things are cheap and easy to put together. The problem is, these things break.
;when he refers to "cheap machines," is he speaking of software or hardware (or both)? the reason i find this interesting is that linux has a reputation for being very stable as a server operating system and i'm wondering what exactly is "failing" on these so-called "cheap machines"--the operating system or the hardware....
;i was wondering the same thing. do modifications of this sort fall under the GPL? if so, isn't google required to share them with the public, or are "patches" not considered "modifications" to the software?
;with the exception of "non-freestanding" starbucks (such as those run by marriott), the answer to your question is yes, they should all carry nytimes. to be sure, you might want to ask this guy.
;and it's not *what* you drink that makes you pretentious, it's *how* you drink it.
"Why do you think that *end users* would care what they run on their server? In large (and even decently run small) environments, *USERS DO NOT ADMIN THEIR OWN MACHINES*."
;the point i was making was that if IT staff have a hard time making a transition to Unix, how much harder would it be for end-users? it was not to say that end-users should or do perform administrative functions.
...the true acme of skill of any geek worth his or her salt (read: NOT churned out by a cert mill...
;i couldn't agree more. the geeks i am speaking of, however, are a special breed of MS toolers. they know their way around a windows box, but put them in front of a Unix machine, and they're lost. Unix geeks are the opposite--these are, i believe, the geeks you are talking about.
The functions are pretty standard across platforms. One's interaction and method of accessing said functions change as you hop from platform to platform..GUI to GUI.. but the theory and the purpose stays the same.
;this i have to disagree with. there are very few fundamental architecture similiarities between Unix and Windows (read: "under the hood"). even the GUI's--apart from, say, the "taskbar" or "dock" style of end user interfaces--do not share similar methodology. windows is inherently limited in that the GUI has (at least historically) come first, then the command line. Unix/Linux is exactly the opposite.
...but overall...the only difference (to the user) is the interface.
You said that people may not be 'capable' to learn something new. I say thats nonsense...
;ok, here's where i'm going to get my face chewed off. i am going to go out on a limb and make the assertion that most microsoft network and systems administrators (read: MCSA/MCSE's) would have a very difficult time learning Unix architecture. several reason:
administering windows (even at the highest level) does not require programmatic knowledge of the architecture.
windows products denote a certain homogeny. a comfort level with microsoft products lends one to a less adaptable nature because one is not require to "hop around" from system to system in a homogenous environment.
interface idioms in windows base products lead users to associate those idioms with the back end functionality of the system. this concept does not apply to Unix systems. for example: running an executable on windows is running the program. there is little or no thought to the libraries behind that executable.
;here's the flamebait. simply put: Unix geeks are smarter (read: hacker ethos). to be self-initiated on the level of C programming or complex shell scripting takes a special breed of individual. i simply do not see evidence that those who have this personal drive are using windows or care to. conversly, i do not see evidence that those who are using windows are *capable* (think: chess club member, higher percentile intelligence) to teach themselves unix--learning unix is not a matter of simply "toying around" with a GUI.
Its all based on logic...
;there is very little logic in microsoft products.
Once you get the interface down, then all it comes down to is making a list of what functions are used in the current system, and how those functions are accessed and executed in the new.
;again, simply not true. unix is not "all about the GUI" as windows is. therefore, functions cannot be "intuited" or derived as they can on windows systems. setting up a linux-based mail server, for example is not just a matter of popping in a cd-rom, following an install wizard, and configuring the software with a GUI--this is to say nothing of their quality, it is merely a reference to how the configuration process transpires.
;i hear the term "total cost of ownership" a lot--especially from the microsoft camp--but have any of these large corporations (or even smaller ones) considered the personnel issues that may arise from a mass migration?
;even migrating just the *server infrastructure* of their corporation to a GNU/Linux or OS X based architecture would mean that those network and system administrators--the most technologically savvy user group--would have to know those architectures fairly well, right? what about the end users?
;what i have found in my experience is that those in the IT industry who know microsoft products, know *only* MS products, and most are uncomfortable with the idea of and form of UNIX--beit BSD, or Linux kernel based.
;but have companies such as AT&T or the like taken this into consideration: that many of their MS knowledgeable IT staff may not know Unix systems, care to, or even be *capable* of learning them?
; i am not attempt to bait anyone. i am a part of the aforementioned group of MS administrators. but while i know that products such as GNU/Linux and Mac OS X may be better--in may ways--am i really prepared to migrate to these products when my IT staff may not be capable enough to administer them? am i considering my "total total cost of ownership?" and if they *aren't* ready, are they prepared to pay for their training in order to get of the microsoft merry-go-round? let's hope so.
;why no documentation? though i am personally not opposed to searching for or reading tips on modifying the browser, i wonder why "tweaks" like this aren't documented in the help.
;are actions such as modifying the chrome or about:config considered "unsupported" by the developers at mozilla? curious...
"I'm not sure if the theme is switched back to Qute, which I like, but all I know is that the 0.9 theme just wasn't professional enough to 'take over the world'."
;i just installed ff0.9.1, and the theme is the same as 0.9, albeit with a few *minor* tweaks to the back, forward, refresh, and stop button icons.
...because i'm running ff0.9 w/ adblock right now and it works like a charm.
;just because it isn't on the extensions download site, doesn't mean it doesn work. if you had looked it up, you may have found that many others are using Adblock 0.5 d2 nightly 39 without any problems....
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? The Linux kernel is at the core of Windows?
I install wireless networks professionally and I can pick out a handful of factors that will make or break your decision:
...in mid-town Manhattan ...100+ users to begin, 200 capacity... ...(probably running over VPN for security).... ...there is a web application hosted off site.
:D
1.
2. The new space is on one floor...
3.
4.
5.
Issue 1: RF Interference
Addressing item #1, how much square footage do you anticipate these 100+ people using? According to item #2, you intend to accomplish this on one floor, and given that you are in mid-town Manhattan, I imagine a small office footprint.
At first blush, this sounds like a recipe for disaster--at least as far as I understand what you are doing. First of all, just being able to service X number of wireless users per access points is not enough. You have to consider how the RF field being put out by each AP will overlap others. In the US there are 11 channels for 802.11b/g and only 3 do not overlap (at least enough for it to matter practically); too much inter-accesspoint overlap will cause a sever drop in throughput--APs will be fighting each other's RF output. You may find yourself at the very least having to dial back each AP's power output significantly just to get clients to associate reliably. Also bear in mind that given you will be on a single floor, your RF output will extend three dimensionally to upper and lower floors if you are using directional antennas. This is not just an issue for your neighbors, but also with multipath distortion.
Issue 2: Latency
You mention that your network will "probably running over VPN for security" which will add to the already high latency of a wireless network. The overhead involved in setting up a connection on a wireless network and transmitting in a timely manner is exhorbitant by comparison to Ethernet. Add to that an even higher overhead for a VPN (even hardware accelerated) and you've got a recipe for disaster on all but the most tolerant user base. Item #5--your off-site web app--is likely to cause serious headache.
Latency will be a major factor if you intend on doing any amount of VoIP or video conferencing, and this traffic will require traffic shaping too.
Issue 3: Throughput
The reality is that we are still in a "Pre N" world. The very maximum you can squeeze out of your 802.11g network is around 22Mbps overall. And here's another fact that a lot of admins don't know: as soon as you associate 1--just 1--802.11b client to that g network, your total maximum throughput drops immediately to 8Mbps. Compare this to Gigabit Ethernet in performance vs. cost.
My suggestion is to design a wireless network that will properly cover the office space, but cable Ethernet drops for key locations such as stationary offices and conference areas that are likely to see a lot of consistent use. Users should be able to roam about the office, but have a drop at their disposal if their application demands it. Your users will be happier, you will be happier, and you won't run the risk of cooking your staff with all those microwaves.
;this happens if cookies are disabled. the index wants to set a cookie for which world site is your default. ;treehead
;if i were a NLD user, i might enjoy subverting the 'designed for windows' decal with novell's version.
;treehead
;needs a protective housing. perhaps a plastic one with caps at both ends to cover the ports when you put it in your pocket or bag.
;treehead
Copernicus ...looks strikingly similar to... Dr. Zefram Cochrane.
it's searchable.
...
it's 100% cross-platform.
it's substantially smaller than an image.
it's editable by anyone.
why not a text file?
heck, even an ASCII art text file:
| IDF4-Switch3 Dell PowerEdge 3024 |
| 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 g1 |
| 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 g2 |
Port Assignments:
1 --> VLAN1
2 --> VLAN2
3 --> VLAN1
...etcetera. a simple sed/awk/grep search would tell you what switches were assigned to what VLANS or devices.
Two words: Network QOS
The G.711 codec is capable of a carrier grade phone call... even G.729 is passable for business, but not without Quality of Service. I am consistently surprised at how many small businesses want VoIP *just* to being using it. They don't want a network survey done before they have it installed, and then complain when it doesn't sound like their CO lines or TDM.
The biggest failing of Voice over IP is not the standard itself, but the network its run on. Most people still don't understand that putting voice on a network drastically affects not just the level of traffic/congestion, but that the quality of their phone call relies on how well their network performs. They just don't see the correlation... until we explain why their call to their IP phones in India over DSL sounds like a tin bucket being dropped down stairs.
An MCSE, a CCIE, a RHCE, and an A+ certified worker are all standing around drinking coffee when their manager walks in:
"No one can send e-mail! Fix it!"
Quickly, the CCIE, RHCE, and A+ all spring into action, checking their systems.
CCIE: "The network is just fine."
RHCE: "The firewall and proxy are fine."
A+: "None of the computers are broken, I think."
The three look at the MCSE, just sitting casually in his chair.
"What are you just sitting their for?!"
MCSE: "I'm waiting for a patch."
;funny, worked just fine for me:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:opendarwin.org +mailman+listinfo+searchterm
;or even...
[CTRL]+[F] <searchterm>
;treehead
;uhm... what happens when someone *spends* the money?!
;treehead
;i did indeed read that paragraph, and i linked to it precisely because google does distribute their software, at least at some level. the more technically accurate question then, i suppose, is whether *distributed* google products run modded linux.
;treehead
"The downside to cheap machines is, you have to make them work together reliably," Hoelzle said. "These things are cheap and easy to put together. The problem is, these things break.
;when he refers to "cheap machines," is he speaking of software or hardware (or both)? the reason i find this interesting is that linux has a reputation for being very stable as a server operating system and i'm wondering what exactly is "failing" on these so-called "cheap machines"--the operating system or the hardware....
;treehead
;i was wondering the same thing. do modifications of this sort fall under the GPL? if so, isn't google required to share them with the public, or are "patches" not considered "modifications" to the software?
;treehead
"DRM ... is quite possibly the holy grail of the music and movie industry..."
;yes, and much like the infamous holy grail, is a completely unattainable myth.
"if it can be engineered, can be reverse-engineered."
;treehead
;no, no, no it's called bash .
;treehead
;with the exception of "non-freestanding" starbucks (such as those run by marriott), the answer to your question is yes, they should all carry nytimes. to be sure, you might want to ask this guy.
;and it's not *what* you drink that makes you pretentious, it's *how* you drink it.
;treehead
;i believe this chap has a far worse job than any listed here... but you be the judge. er, moderator.
;treehead
;if you're "S" was higher, you'd be able to tell us. ;treehead
"Why do you think that *end users* would care what they run on their server? In large (and even decently run small) environments, *USERS DO NOT ADMIN THEIR OWN MACHINES*."
;the point i was making was that if IT staff have a hard time making a transition to Unix, how much harder would it be for end-users? it was not to say that end-users should or do perform administrative functions.
;treehead
;i couldn't agree more. the geeks i am speaking of, however, are a special breed of MS toolers. they know their way around a windows box, but put them in front of a Unix machine, and they're lost. Unix geeks are the opposite--these are, i believe, the geeks you are talking about.
The functions are pretty standard across platforms. One's interaction and method of accessing said functions change as you hop from platform to platform..GUI to GUI.. but the theory and the purpose stays the same.
;this i have to disagree with. there are very few fundamental architecture similiarities between Unix and Windows (read: "under the hood"). even the GUI's--apart from, say, the "taskbar" or "dock" style of end user interfaces--do not share similar methodology. windows is inherently limited in that the GUI has (at least historically) come first, then the command line. Unix/Linux is exactly the opposite.
You said that people may not be 'capable' to learn something new. I say thats nonsense...
;ok, here's where i'm going to get my face chewed off. i am going to go out on a limb and make the assertion that most microsoft network and systems administrators (read: MCSA/MCSE's) would have a very difficult time learning Unix architecture. several reason:
;here's the flamebait. simply put: Unix geeks are smarter (read: hacker ethos). to be self-initiated on the level of C programming or complex shell scripting takes a special breed of individual. i simply do not see evidence that those who have this personal drive are using windows or care to. conversly, i do not see evidence that those who are using windows are *capable* (think: chess club member, higher percentile intelligence) to teach themselves unix--learning unix is not a matter of simply "toying around" with a GUI.
Its all based on logic...
;there is very little logic in microsoft products.
Once you get the interface down, then all it comes down to is making a list of what functions are used in the current system, and how those functions are accessed and executed in the new.
;again, simply not true. unix is not "all about the GUI" as windows is. therefore, functions cannot be "intuited" or derived as they can on windows systems. setting up a linux-based mail server, for example is not just a matter of popping in a cd-rom, following an install wizard, and configuring the software with a GUI--this is to say nothing of their quality, it is merely a reference to how the configuration process transpires.
;treehead
;i hear the term "total cost of ownership" a lot--especially from the microsoft camp--but have any of these large corporations (or even smaller ones) considered the personnel issues that may arise from a mass migration?
;even migrating just the *server infrastructure* of their corporation to a GNU/Linux or OS X based architecture would mean that those network and system administrators--the most technologically savvy user group--would have to know those architectures fairly well, right? what about the end users?
;what i have found in my experience is that those in the IT industry who know microsoft products, know *only* MS products, and most are uncomfortable with the idea of and form of UNIX--beit BSD, or Linux kernel based.
;but have companies such as AT&T or the like taken this into consideration: that many of their MS knowledgeable IT staff may not know Unix systems, care to, or even be *capable* of learning them?
; i am not attempt to bait anyone. i am a part of the aforementioned group of MS administrators. but while i know that products such as GNU/Linux and Mac OS X may be better--in may ways--am i really prepared to migrate to these products when my IT staff may not be capable enough to administer them? am i considering my "total total cost of ownership?" and if they *aren't* ready, are they prepared to pay for their training in order to get of the microsoft merry-go-round? let's hope so.
;treehead
;why no documentation? though i am personally not opposed to searching for or reading tips on modifying the browser, i wonder why "tweaks" like this aren't documented in the help.
;are actions such as modifying the chrome or about:config considered "unsupported" by the developers at mozilla? curious...
;i would never have found out about how cool firefox keywords are without this article, for instance.
;ok, i guess mod me down... i didn't have much to say :)
;treehead
"I'm not sure if the theme is switched back to Qute, which I like, but all I know is that the 0.9 theme just wasn't professional enough to 'take over the world'."
;i just installed ff0.9.1, and the theme is the same as 0.9, albeit with a few *minor* tweaks to the back, forward, refresh, and stop button icons.
;treehead
...because i'm running ff0.9 w/ adblock right now and it works like a charm.
;just because it isn't on the extensions download site, doesn't mean it doesn work. if you had looked it up, you may have found that many others are using Adblock 0.5 d2 nightly 39 without any problems....
;treehead