Creating a home network

[iAtomPlaza]

I'm in the process of setting up a home network (I don't have any of the hardware yet) and I would like some pointers and/or recommendations

 

I have created a diagram of what I can imagine what the finished product might look like.

 

Switch 1 is for personal access to the network; WI-FI and Ethernet connected pc's

Switch 2 is for everything else like servers

 

[VinZie]

Try to trunk the switches and create separate VLANs and setting certain ACL's for switch 1 so it won't interfere with the personal access to the network.

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, iAtomPlaza said:

Switch 1 is for personal access to the network; WI-FI and Ethernet connected pc's

Switch 2 is for everything else like servers

If you do it like that, you gotta remember that the connection between all your PCs and the likes and your servers will be limited to that of the connection between the two switches, ie. if both switches were gigabit-switches and you have User1 copying files to the NAS-server and User2 copying files to the Minecraft-server, they'd be sharing the 1Gbps-connection, instead of each having the full 1Gbps all to themselves.

 

If the servers were connected to the same switch as everything else, then the two users would be able to fully utilize the two different servers simultaneously.

 

Now, whether that matters to you or not, you'll have to decide for yourself.

[iAtomPlaza]

3 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

if both switches were gigabit-switches and you have User1 copying files to the NAS-server and User2 copying files to the Minecraft-server, they'd be sharing the 1Gbps-connection, instead of each having the full 1Gbps all to themselves.

I didn't realize this, could you elaborate on how to fix this? I'm also new to the field of networking

[VinZie]

1 minute ago, iAtomPlaza said:

I didn't realize this, could you elaborate on how to fix this? I'm also new to the field of networking

If you know how to set the access port speed, try to limit the port to like let's say 100mbps of transfer instead of on sharing the 1gbps. During my time in my cisco class we had to trunk, add VLANs, and add ACL's and limit port speed on our network for a project.

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, VinZie said:

If you know how to set the access port speed, try to limit the port to like let's say 100mbps of transfer instead of on sharing the 1gbps.

What would the point be? It'd just slow things down even more!

8 minutes ago, iAtomPlaza said:

I didn't realize this, could you elaborate on how to fix this?

Like I said, you connect the servers to the same switch as everything else.

[VinZie]

1 minute ago, WereCatf said:

What would the point be? It'd just slow things down even more!

Like I said, you connect the servers to the same switch as everything else.

I would do that if I wanted to let's say download some games and my servers were using most of the bandwidth.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, VinZie said:

I would do that if I wanted to let's say download some games and my servers were using most of the bandwidth.

Wow, that's such a stupid idea; you really think that instead of sharing a 1Gbps-link between all the servers, limiting them to a shared 100Mbps-link would somehow be better? If user1 wanted to copy something to server1 and user2 wanted to copy something to server2, now they'd each have less than 100Mbps bandwidth for that, whereas before they at least had 1Gbps to share!

[VinZie]

Just now, WereCatf said:

Wow, that's such a stupid idea; you really think that instead of sharing a 1Gbps-link between all the servers, limiting them to a shared 100Mbps-link would somehow be better? If user1 wanted to copy something to server1 and user2 wanted to copy something to server2, now they'd each have less than 100Mbps bandwidth for that, whereas before they at least had 1Gbps to share!

Nevermind, you are right! My bad for the misconceptions!

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Wow, that's such a stupid idea; you really think that instead of sharing a 1Gbps-link between all the servers, limiting them to a shared 100Mbps-link would somehow be better? If user1 wanted to copy something to server1 and user2 wanted to copy something to server2, now they'd each have less than 100Mbps bandwidth for that, whereas before they at least had 1Gbps to share!

You make a good point, but surely you could be more polite about it.

[WereCatf]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

You make a good point, but surely you could be more polite about it.

No.

[VinZie]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

You make a good point, but surely you could be more polite about it.

Eh, I mean he is teaching me a lesson. I appreciate the concerns though! I am also new into networking since I am taking college level cisco networking classes in high school.

[WereCatf]

7 minutes ago, VinZie said:

Eh, I mean he is teaching me a lesson. I appreciate the concerns though! I am also new into networking since I am taking college level cisco networking classes in high school.

It's not like I was calling you a retard or anything. You had a stupid idea and it wouldn't have worked, but I only called the idea that and not you as a person. We all do brainfarts every now and then and if you ever see me having one, feel free to call me out on it just as well.

[Gorgon]

You can make this as complicated as you want.

 

My suggestion, rather than a bunch of switches get one larger switch and plug everything into it for now use smaller switches if they make sense.

 

My home network is a 26-port Gigabit switch that everything collapses into and 2 8-port switches, one for my desk as I try stuff out there and the other is in an upstairs bedroom to feed a second NAS, HTPC the upstairs access point and drops to other bedrooms. The second switch was so I didnt have to run a ton of cables from the basement.

 

Look for a VLAN capable switch so you have the flexibility to segment your traffic in the future if you want to isolate any lab or DMZ networks.

[iAtomPlaza]

from what im understanding, i should remove switch2 and connect my servers to switch1 alongside my access points?

(according to my diagram in my first post)

[iAtomPlaza]

5 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Like I said, you connect the servers to the same switch as everything else

Would it work if i separate the servers and the personal access into separate networks and join then via a router?

 

[WereCatf]

3 hours ago, iAtomPlaza said:

Would it work if i separate the servers and the personal access into separate networks and join then via a router?

No, all the data would still go through a single connection.

 

Imagine having a pipe that can carry 10 liters of water per second at maximum at any given time. If you connect one end of that pipe to a reservoir and the other end to a house, that house can then use a maximum of 10 liters of water per second. If you connect another house to that pipe, what happens when house2 wants to use, say, 8 liters per second? Both houses can't have 10 liters of water per second through the same pipe, since that'd be 20 liters of water per second, but the pipe can carry only 10 liters per second, so house2 would get 8 liters per second and house1 would be able to use 2 liters per second.

 

Even if you added 200 reservoirs on the other end of that pipe, the pipe's size wouldn't magically change and so the maximum it could carry through it would still be 10 liters per second. This is pretty much your situation -- you have reservoirs, ie. the servers on one end of a single pipe, ie. the connection between router and switch2, and households on the other end of the pipe, and all the "water" between them has to go through a single pipe.

 

This is why switches and hubs exist: any two devices can communicate at full speed with each other without disturbing the other devices connected directly to it. User1 could transfer data to/from your NAS-server at full 1Gbps speed, while User2 could transfer data to/from your Minecraft-server at full 1Gbps-speed and neither would have to share anything. They'd only have to share if they were trying to use the same server at the same time, whereas in your original plan, they'd have to share any time they tried to use either of the servers, even if they weren't trying to use the same one.

[iAtomPlaza]

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

...any two devices can communicate at full speed with each other without disturbing the other devices connected directly to it

How could i connect my network in such a way to achieve this result?

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, iAtomPlaza said:

How could i connect my network in such a way to achieve this result?

I've already told you twice. Connect. All. The. Devices. To. The. Same. Switch.

[scottyseng]

Just to clear things up...when you say USG rack mount modem, you mean the ISP modem right? Not the Ubiquiti USG router?

 

But yeah, you'd rather have a single large switch with everything connected to it, and have VLANs splitting the traffic apart. That way any data that doesn't need the internet (local file transfer) goes across the switch. It is very easy to overload 1Gb ethernet with file transfers.

[Jarsky]

18 hours ago, iAtomPlaza said:

Switch 1 is for personal access to the network; WI-FI and Ethernet connected pc's

Switch 2 is for everything else like servers

 

Don't do this, use a single switch. If you're trying to do security, then use a managed switch so you can do VLAN's. 

 

Also you mention "USG Modem" and then "Router". 

Is the "USG Modem" a UniFi USG Firewall? If so, you don't need or want a seperate router as the USG will do that function. 

If you are doing a UniFi network, then the switch you want is probably a US-16-150W - its managed so can do VLAN's, it has 802.3af ports for powering your AP's and it has plenty of ports for the number of devices you have. 

 

The only reason to have another switch in a home setup, is if you have an area where you need a lot of connections. For me this is my home theater. I have my TV, Receiver, Satellite box, Xbox, PS3, PS4, HTPC all plugged into an 8 port switch so I can run them off a single ethernet port that runs back to my main switch (48 port managed).

[iAtomPlaza]

10 hours ago, scottyseng said:

Just to clear things up...when you say USG rack mount modem, you mean the ISP modem right? Not the Ubiquiti USG router?

Yes

 

2 hours ago, Jarsky said:

Don't do this, use a single switch. If you're trying to do security, then use a managed switch so you can do VLAN's

 

10 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Connect. All. The. Devices. To. The. Same. Switch.

Ive connected everything to one main switch, but would it work like this in the diagram?

and sorry for my lack of understanding here, im just experimenting around.

 

 

I got this idea from this post:

Spoiler

On 8/17/2014 at 6:24 AM, Ssoele said:

 

 

[VinZie]

22 minutes ago, iAtomPlaza said:

Yes

 

 

Ive connected everything to one main switch, but would it work like this in the diagram?

and sorry for my lack of understanding here, im just experimenting around.

 

 

I got this idea from this post:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I would remove router 1.1 and do a ALS setup with a couple of VLANs

[WereCatf]

30 minutes ago, iAtomPlaza said:

Ive connected everything to one main switch, but would it work like this in the diagram?

You just keep making it worse.

[VinZie]

Just now, WereCatf said:

You just keep making it worse.

I think he is honestly using more equipment for this more then he needs