50 User DSL network

[DiamondFire13]

Hey All,

I am writing this to look for advice and critiquing of my ideas for my proposed plan to provide an internet connection to all of the people living in my Fraternity house. We already have the entire house properly wired for about 50 people. There is a 100Mbs switch at the backbone of everything, and then 2 48 port 100Mbs hubs that go to most of the users. I am planning on buying or building a server. Either way, this is my plan: To get 4 network cards in the thing, connect 3 DSL lines to it, use Win2K Server and share the 3 DSL conections (that step is easy as pie) and then conect the 4th network card to the switch. I think that our network should be perfectly fine for all of this, Internet useage should be pretty low traffic. THe main dilema now is wether this will work or not. I am looking for someone who may have done somthing like this before, someone that may know the ins and outs of doing somthing like this.

Also, I am being pushed to buy a 'server' from Dell or Gateway, I feel that this is highly unnecessary, becuase unless you spend a fortune you are basicly getting a normal PC with a different OS. I want to save money and build it myself, it would be cheaper and I wont have to deal with all of these dang unknown componenets that companies put in their computers.

I am just looking for ANY general advice and suggestions,
Thank you so much for the help,
Paul Hilgeman

 

[IsOs]

I'm curious, what OS & software will share 3 DSL inbound connections to 1 outbound that act as proxy to 50 units? Also, why use 3 DSL lines instead of 1. Unless DSL lines are from 3 different ISP providers, all 3 lines will be experiencing the heavy requests at the ISP side. Does it mean, you'll have 3 phone lines for DSL. If only one, aren't you going to be limited by the phone company's capacity on the line itself?

 

[LordOfAll]

1. How do you plan to load balance the DSL lines?
2. What else will the server be used for?
3. A 48 port HUB! ack! Man that has to slow to a crawl with heavy usage!
4. What are your usage patterns like?
5. What type of DSL? Speed?

 

[BreakApart]

Nice plan...
Perhaps a few tips:

Don't use HUBS... (50 people-there are bound to be 10 gaming, 10-downloading/surfing, and 10-downloading/uploading napster) All this traffic will kill those hubs. Switches cost a little more, but the network will be sooooo much better for it...(not a requirement, just a suggestion)

3-DSL lines? Perhaps one large pipeline DSL would be a much better option... With 3-DSL lines you will have to configure load-balancing and all the limitations that this will have. Better solution is use the money to open the bandwidth on (1)DSL line...

Your right in that buying/building a server is the way to go. If you have an experienced computer builder, then building one-should be fine. Few tips= don't over-clock the server, don't setup the server for use as a workstation. Buy basic parts-no fancy 3D awesome great stuff, just the basics. 128mb is a minimum for this server, as long as the server will not be used as a database-server(SQL, FoxPro, etc), then 400mhz CPU will be all you need.

For the best server connection use namebrand-high quality NICs-like 3COM in the server... The rest of the network, use whatever works...

 

[DiamondFire13]

IsOs
The reson for using 3 DSL lines is because they are Dirt cheap, 768Kb/s incoming is about 45 bucks per month. As far as the load balancing goes, I dont know much about that stuff, I do know that I have set up a server with Win 2K on it and shared an Internet conection across a 10 user network, it works beautifully and FAST. Also on this network, there was another user with just a modem, we were able to share it, and as expected, it was shared, and using the network monitoring tools, it was used somehow, i mean we saw no real useable increase in speed, 768 vs. 768+56. But the fact remains that somehow Win2K figured it out.

There will be 3 seperate DSL Modems, 3 separte phone lines, all running at 768 Kb/s. Now, that might not make too much sense, but how the hell else could we get 2304 Kb/s Incoming speed for about 135.00 per month, that is about 3.00 per person, and that was our goal. One DSL among 10 people has been damn fast, this should be even faster.

LordOfAll

1. How do you plan to load balance the DSL lines?
See Above, otherwise I would gladly take suggestions
2. What else will the server be used for?
Absolutely nothing
3. A 48 port HUB! ack! Man that has to slow to a crawl with heavy usage!
Actually it will be 2 24 Port Hubs, switched at the next level Higher, all 10/100 and all this is going to be used for is Internet, thats all. Maybe there will be some files shared every once in a while, but thats it.
4. What are your usage patterns like?
See Previous question, pretty damn low. On my sub network, we go through about a Gigabyte of incoming data from the internet every 3 days or so, so about 333 Megs per day comes through my computer from the internet. THis is on one DSL to 10 users. I am running a Duron@1150 with 192 Megs of Ram, and the Internet sharing dosnt make ANY difference in ANY program that I have ever run.
5. What type of DSL? Speed?
See above.

If there are any more questions, let me know, thanks for all of the help so far, I hope that this can get us somewhere.

 

[DiamondFire13]

Thanks BreakAppart,

I see what you mean by the hubs/switches thing, I will look into it. Currently we are under budget on the whole project, and if they let me build the computer, we should be way under. I know how to build a computer, I have done it several times. My curent computer Duron 700@1150 has run for 30 days straight, all the while being used as an internet server and my own personal workstation running all of my engineering software. Quite a feat I think.

See waht I wrote in the previous message about the bandwidth issue

Thanks,
Paul

 

[BreakApart]

Diamond,

My concern for a dedicated server: if the person at the console crashes-locksup-freezes-or worse yet deletes something--All 50 people are without a connection to the net. Think of it as the weak link, i would hate to ruin the fun/research/download/email/nudiepicsearching of 50 people cause i "thought" it would be ok to use the server as a workstation...

Perhaps your braver than me... lol

The load balancing issues we have tried to raise can be difficult to explain. So i will simply say--if you can get (4) networking cards load balancing (3) network connections---please drop us a note on the performance...

To add to my previous single connection method: This would be ideal to convert this server to a mail-server as well... 50 people all with net access, their own private email domain address, perhaps even web-server, sounds like a nice college setup.

Good Luck...

 

[LordOfAll]

OK lets look at this idea a little bit more.

W2K server will not load balance 3 outbound connections. What will happen is all the traffic will go through one and the other 2 will idle. It all has to do with default gateways and how the routing table works. To much to go into right now anyway. For what you are doing a server is way overkill price wise. The software and licences alone are around $2000. You did know you needed a licence for everyone logging in, right? Add to that hardware costs and it is not really worth it. Some alternatives are.

1. By a router that will load balance. I know cisco makes one (several probably), but these will be pricey.

2. By three inexpesive routers (like a netgear 311) and put the internal connections into a switch. Then make sure 1/3 of the users are set up to use each router. Something like one would be 192.168.1.200, one would be .201, and one would be .202. Don't use DHCP and set the default gateway to the router you want to use, 1/3 to each. Figure about $450 in routers and $900 in switches and you are set. Way under the price for your server.

 

[TerreApart]

Lord, i believe you are confusing a full business legal system, that uses Microsoft products. With a network that uses freeware, shareware, stolenware, and/or linuxware products. I know he mentioned 2000, but with 2000 he can use the built in proxy for free to my knowledge(i was not aware this built in proxy had a user limit?).

He can complete this package fairly cheap depending what he uses and wants. I agree though if he stays with microsoft products it could be expensive to use(legally). However, if he wanted he could make a linux server that does everything i mentioned for about $100-200 total software and licenses(if even needed).

Lord, that is an excellent way to utilize all three connections by limiting each routers # of users(IP scheme). He won't get the huge bandwidth he was hoping for, tho it will be less likely to choke... Clever idea...

 

[Tippy]

Lord of All has the right idea. You need to get yourself a router or routers. I just came across some good tips on routers (brands, performance, etc.) over at 8wire.com. They're all about networking over there. Try 'em out.

 

[DiamondFire13]

Sounds like you have some good ideas guys, keep em coming.

I dont quite know if the router thing would work. The first time that I set up my little network here with 10 users, I tried putting the DSL right into the switch, but since the switch couldnt be a gateway, it didnt work, and every user on the switch had to have a different IP. The problem with this is the fact that the ISP for the DSL only gives us 1 IP address. Will this work differenly with a router, do I just put the router address in for the Gateway address in the different computers? This would rock if it will all work out without getting a server. I would like some more details on doing this server-free.

Someone mentioned liscences for all of the users, this wouldnt be needed, they can run their own OS's and access the Internet throught the Server acting as a Gateway.

Thank you all so much,
Paul Hilgeman

 

[DiamondFire13]

Hey, What if we had the 3 DSL's conected to a bridge, and then to an inteligent switch or a router? Would this do Load balancing and also eliminate the need for a server. If this dosnt work, is there a way to get a single router that we can plug the DSL's into and have it seen as one gateway and have it handle the load balancing.

Also, more random thoughts, is there a way to use the server as 3 different gateways and scrap the load balacing all together? I would like to do load balancing, but if we cant, do I have to do it in hardware with a switch or a router? Please explain the details involved in load balancing in either hardware(without a server) or software(with server).

Thanks alot,
Paul

 

[AdamWhite]

If you pick up three DSL/Cable routers and you say you have the two Hubs switched together, I am hoping you have atleast three open ports on the switch. Wired up something like this.

DSL-Router-\
\ Hub-Users
\ /
\ /
DSL-Router-----Switch
/ \
/ \
/ Hub-Users
DSL-Router-/

(Don't know what happened to my picture )

You would configure the LAN port on the routers something like this.

Router 1:
IP: 10.1.1.1
Mask: 255.255.255.0

Router 2:
IP: 10.1.1.2
Mask: 255.255.255.0

Router 3:
IP: 10.1.1.3
Mask: 255.255.255.0

All the routers would need the WAN port configured according to the DSL provider.

As for the clients, you would need to go around to each computer and asign all TCP/IP info by hand. This will be what balences your load.
All clients would get a IP of 10.1.1.xxx (each must be unique on the network) I would start with 100 and work your way up.
The Mask will be 255.255.255.0 for all the clients. Here is the trick. As for the Gateway IP, you will distrabute one of the three Router IPs. Say the first client will get 10.1.1.1 , the next will get 10.1.1.2 , and the next will get 10.1.1.3 and just repeat 1,2,3 till all clients have been configured. If you have heavy users you can get creative with your asignment so a you have some heavy users and some light users on one Gateway and other heavy users, and so on, on the other two gateways.

All three DSL's should have the same DNS servers so that will all be the same on all clients.

This way makes more work for you to maintain the network but should be the cheepest way to do it. Routers being less than 100 bucks each. 300 is less than any server would be.

I also could be totaly wrong here but I don't think I am.

 

[Captain_Rob]

I believe a Layer 3 routing protocol like OSPF or IGRP is needed to do load balancing. Windows 2000 does support OSPF, but I seriously doubt M$ could have possibly implemented the Internet sharing software in such a way it could even be setup to load balance properly, much less do it automatically by just running ICS. If this were the case they would put Cisco out of business

Routers are available to do exactly what you want, but the cost of the router, plus and the fee?s you would pay a network specialist to properly configure it, would blow your budget out of the water.

I have to say though I like the simple solution of manually load balancing by using three $150 routers. Basically each router would be doing what you are doing now with ICS. Doing this however could become be an administrative nightmare. Just make sure you keep very good records of each user. You will never get the three gateways truly balanced, and I think you would have people saying ?he?s faster then me? and ask to be moved to another gateway. However, when you consider the low price each person would be paying, this could be well worth consideration.

I would make sure to pad the per user price a little to cover any the cost of any unexpected failures, plus give the administrator(s) a little pocket change their labor.

 

[Akash]

win2k does load balanceing your on the right track just install win2k advanced server...
LBA
thats for one adapter but i am sure your smart enough to manulapte it...
and please all dont under estmate the power of win2k and its ability.. its got mad power.. and to implement win2k advanced server your going to have to buld a hell of a machine well thats my help to you.. forget the other router's u dont need all that garbage u had it down pack .. one more thing for licences u dont have to have everybody to login to get an ip' and share internet connection

 

[Captain_Rob]

Akash,

That link is about load balancing a cluster of servers. Isn't that totally differant than load balancing network bandwidth?

 

[DiamondFire13]

Alright, just to clarify,

There will be NO Logging in. This is purely a Internet Connection Sharing network, that is all it will do. Thats it. I curently know how to share 1 DSL among a few computers, simply with ICS in Win2k Advanced Server. My curent perdicament it how to share multiple DSL lines among more computers. I would like to know what the best way to do it is. I would like to be able to do Load balancing, either with or without a server is fine, but I would like to do a server more. And if Win 2K has MADDDDD Power, I would like to use that, with a few NICs and let the server do the load balancing and the routing.

Thanks everyone for all of the info, it is helping me greatly!!!
Keep it comin'

Paul Hilgeman

 

[kohutek]

I'm going to have to agree with the rst of the guys. I don't know if you have a warezed copy of win2k advanced server or whatnot, if you do, then you'll need a hella-powerful machine to do that much network control. I advocate win2k, but I think think a hardware solution is best.

As long as the bandwidth-heavy users are spread out among the 3 routers, and not saturating any one line, the hardware setup should work well. It would be easy to shuffle people among the different lines if congestion became an issue; just redirect to which gateway the computers should use.

That however, would require all three switches to be uplinked to each other so that there wouldn't *have* to be cable moving should a person be assigned to a different line.


I agree with the people that are saying that 3 routers would do the trick.

my $0.06, kohutek

 

[WoundedWallet]

I'm jumping on the router bandwagon too.

It be easier to implement, easier to manage, it will also be cheaper(if you don't do warez), and it will be less problematic in case of failure.

One server failure = 50 people mad.
One router failure = 50 people with less speed, once you can rerout them with the extra switch ports that you'll smartly buy.

The only reason for a server to handle all that would be if there was a need to monitor or control the load balancing. Since that is not imperative, then avoid it.

 

[BreakApart]

Akash, the information you linked too, is for load-balancing a cluster setup. A cluster is a group of computers that all have the same information-linked, so a request from an outside source gets balanced among the internal servers...

Simple example-- 3 servers in a cluster, 6 requests for information from an outside source, each of the 3 servers would recieve 2 of these requests for information--load balancing... This setup also requires a single pipeline for access--or a hardware setup for load-balancing multiple access points...

I still don't see a way to load-balance the 3 DSL lines together--in your price range...

The 3 seperate routers divided among the users was/is an excellent idea...

 

[Captain_Rob]

DiamondFire13, send me an email so I can get your return address. I put together an Excel spreadsheet for you that will guide you through installing the 3 separate gateway routers as has been discussed.

 

[BreakApart]

Captain your a hell of a guy....

Would you mind doing my taxes this year? lol

 

[dirtboy]

The problem here is the requirement to have 3 DSL lines simultaneously. As it's been said, the server option won't work too well. A router based setup is the best choice. The problem then is, you'd need three routers. If some people wanted to play LAN games and weren't on the same network, that would pose a serious problem.

If you're not using the bandwidth you have, tripling unused bandwidth is a waste. You won't get faster downloads with 3 lines either. And try not to use anything larger then a 24 port hub. At the last company I worked at we had 5 - 24 port hubs connected to a switch and that would even bring the switch to its knees during heavy usage.

 

[Agamar]

My DSL line for home use gives me 1.5Mbs down /256k up for $40 a month. If I wanted, I could tell them I wanted to switch to a business user, and they would uncap that to the limit of 8Mbs down. That would only cost me about $100 a month. I think you should look into that option. That would save a lot of worrying about bonding the modems, free PCI slots, and other problems that arise from using so many devices (Always a greater chance for one to fail).

 

[spidey07]

I'd have to agree with agamar.

Getting three dsl lines load balanced is a very tricky feat. Yes you would have to run some kind of routing protcol between the provider and you (man you do not want to do this for a small 50 person network.) Get the most bandwidth you can afford on a single connection and then I'd recommend the SONCIWALL for a firewall/nat device. Install it an forget about it.

I have setup load balanced internet connections for customers before using full and partial BGP routing tables. Not for the faint of heart.

spidey

ps - just signed the order for a OC-3 SONET internet connection for my company...quakeIII anyone?