My future home network.

[Lagonda]

This is the diagram of the future network I want to implement in the house:
Linky

It's a full gigabit network. Dedicated backup, data, print, media and HTTP/FTP servers. Full wireless coverage for the entire house.

All computers are hardwired to the network (all computers are gigabit enabled, except the ThinkPad (100mbit)). The portables are equiped with wireless so they can be disconnected while staying connected . A dedicated switch for the extra free Ethernet ports in the most important rooms (not including bathrooms and dining room). We have two living rooms so thats 1 port per room, not 2 in 1 room.

Mind you this is just a concept and there will be structural changes maybe. Example: I'm thinking of intgrating the print server into the backup server and the HTTP server in the firewall computer. I'll probably forget about linux en go OS X all the way, easier and better integration.

The Media Appliance and PVR is a custom project with no concrete plans yet so I can't really comment on that on yet. It's low priority.

The connection to the internet that we have right now is a 4Mbit ADSL line but we might upgrade that to VDSL or SDSL.

If you have suggestions please feel free to post them.

Anybody else got a home network here ? Maybe a diagram ?

[spi-ti-tout]

Do you live in a PALACE?!?!?!?

[Lagonda]

Nope.

[Matra et Alpine]

Goin WAY overboard on the media and print servers being seperate.
With gig interface then there is NO reason for those to be seperate, also VERY strange to mix technologies in such a small network and likely to cause you consternation with the different media services and the diffrences in video streamign services from each of those OSes. Makes sense if you're going to have dozens of clients of each falvour. WAY overkill for the home. ( Unless you're using it to learn about all the pitfalls of mixed servers )
Do you have wall problems too then ? A singly wireless tx/rx shoudl be enough for most homes. Locate it in the loft, towards the rear of the house and it's footprint will be fine ( unless you're going to restrict the ouput power to give added protection from bandwidth theft )
Does th mac need seperate media aplliance boxes ? When we go to gig I'm goign to move 2 of the video/tv/radio cards to the server. One of the vid cards there will serve as a video feed to appliancses ( goint to use the cat5 cable for that ) and the server will do media distribution to another input on the av system as well as packet media broadcast via the gig-lan. Is there a reason you can't combine that into the mac server either ?

Also what main switch are you using ? Does it NEED a seperate control client ? Can't you enable IP control ??

And do you REALLY mean switch in all those places ? You'd be better avoiding latency and overheads and run everyone off the backbone switch.

The picture looks as if you've got carried away reading a networking book

[PsychoChimp22]

A G5 comp is to fast, expensive, and has to little hard drive space to make a reasonable media senter... its just over kill. IMO only the PC should be a G5, i dont know why youd waste money buying G5 servers. Anyway, if you DO have craploads of money to burn, it looks pretty nice.

So is this just what was in your dream last night or are you really gonna do it?

[Lagonda]

Goin WAY overboard on the media and print servers being seperate.
With gig interface then there is NO reason for those to be seperate, also

Yep I thought about that after making the diagram. I'll probably intgrate the print server into the data/media server and the data/media backup server will probably merge with the normal backup server. Less 1337 but more efficient actually and saves electricity .

VERY strange to mix technologies in such a small network and likely to cause you consternation with the different media services and the diffrences in video streamign services from each of those OSes. Makes sense if you're going to have dozens of clients of each falvour. WAY overkill for the home. ( Unless you're using it to learn about all the pitfalls of mixed servers )

Don't really get what you mean by mix of different technologies here. The "media" (video and audio files) will just be stored on the Data center/media center server and will then be served to the media appliance on demand. No different OSs here. All is done with Mac OS X Server and QuickTime Streaming Server.

Do you have wall problems too then ? A singly wireless tx/rx shoudl be enough for most homes. Locate it in the loft, towards the rear of the house and it's footprint will be fine ( unless you're going to restrict the ouput power to give added protection from bandwidth theft )

The thing is: the house is a quite wide so I will probably be needing to wireless points to cover it. I know when I used Airport at home it wasn't able to cover the entire house entirely. But I will look into more powerfull transmitters. If it is possible I will certainly try to limit the amount hardware used.

Does th mac need seperate media aplliance boxes ? When we go to gig I'm goign to move 2 of the video/tv/radio cards to the server. One of the vid cards there will serve as a video feed to appliancses ( goint to use the cat5 cable for that ) and the server will do media distribution to another input on the av system as well as packet media broadcast via the gig-lan. Is there a reason you can't combine that into the mac server either ?

As said: the Data/Media Server will just stream to the custom "appliance", that appliance will just work as a sort of remote control that decodes the video and audio on the spot and connects to the TV/Audio. The Data/Media Server will not have a direct link to the TV/Audio as that Server will be located in the basement along with the other servers.

Also what main switch are you using ? Does it NEED a seperate control client ? Can't you enable IP control ??

The Admin Terminal is just to admin OSX Server since all the servers will be headless. I could decide to go with administration on my G5 or PowerBook but a dedicated computer I what I really want. But it's not necessary.

And do you REALLY mean switch in all those places ? You'd be better avoiding latency and overheads and run everyone off the backbone switch.

Well, are there any decently priced switches available that have such a big number of ports ? I figured it would be maybe cheaper to use a few small switches. If that's not the case or if there may be big latency issues I would go for a single switch. That's something I don't really know.

The picture looks as if you've got carried away reading a networking book

Never read a networking book in my life actually

A G5 comp is to fast, expensive, and has to little hard drive space to make a reasonable media senter... its just over kill. IMO only the PC should be a G5, i dont know why youd waste money buying G5 servers. Anyway, if you DO have craploads of money to burn, it looks pretty nice.

I never stated that I would use G5 based servers. The servers will probably be second hand G4 PowerMacs or even G3 PowerMacs.
And err, you can add hard drives to a G5 you know ?

So is this just what was in your dream last night or are you really gonna do it?

I am really going to do it, when I can fund it and if my parents agree. They shouldn't care too much since they are moving out in the coming months and giving me the house.

[PsychoChimp22]

I never stated that I would use G5 based servers. The servers will probably be second hand G4 PowerMacs or even G3 PowerMacs.
And err, you can add hard drives to a G5 you know ?

Still not what i would do, but its yours not mine.
How much does a G3 cost these days anyway?

I am really going to do it, when I can fund it and if my parents agree. They shouldn't care too much since they are moving out in the coming months and giving me the house.

Damn you have nice parents!!
I do hope you know your gonna be paying out the ass for this...

[Cotterik]

whaaaaat thats ridiculous, you must be a millionaire, or on cocaine

[Lagonda]

Still not what i would do, but its yours not mine.
How much does a G3 cost these days anyway?

You can get a G3/300 or 400 for 200-300 euro. A Dual 500 G4 for 400-500 and cheaper if you look around. It's worth it for the OS alone. I don't really want to go messing with linux sure the hardware is cheap and the OS free but I'm not knowledgeable to run it and I want that other people in my household can easily use it. And no way that I'll use Windows.

So, tell me, what would you do ?

Damn you have nice parents!!
I do hope you know your gonna be paying out the ass for this...

Yep, they are nice. They are moving to Paris so they give me the house. I know it's going to cost a bit but not extremely much.

whaaaaat thats ridiculous, you must be a millionaire, or on cocaine

What's ridiculous about it ? Money is not really that big of a problem but I'm not extremely rich either and no I'm not on cocaine...

[PsychoChimp22]

You can get a G3/300 or 400 for 200-300 euro. A Dual 500 G4 for 400-500 and cheaper if you look around. It's worth it for the OS alone. I don't really want to go messing with linux sure the hardware is cheap and the OS free but I'm not knowledgeable to run it and I want that other people in my household can easily use it. And no way that I'll use Windows.

So, tell me, what would you do ?

For the server? Id but a cheap case, a pentium 266, (mobo, p/s - minimum), one or two high speed drives (maybe 10,000rpm). And id probably try to salvage some switches from an office building or school, thats what my brother did to get his.

Yep, they are nice. They are moving to Paris so they give me the house. I know it's going to cost a bit but not extremely much.

I havent looked anything up but id assume that would have to cost like $5,000-$10,000 (USD) wouldnt it?

[Matra et Alpine]

Don't really get what you mean by mix of different technologies here. The "media" (video and audio files) will just be stored on the Data center/media center server and will then be served to the media appliance on demand. No different OSs here. All is done with Mac OS X Server and QuickTime Streaming Server.

Your picture showed OS X and Linux as your servers.
Also, with Win2K and WinXP Clients, you'll have technology and security issues over file sharing and streaming.
As you're going to have wireless ports to this network you will ahve to make sure it's all tied down VERY secure.
Mixing all those will get nasty
Then you've opted for a Linux DMZ and an OS-X firewall !!
Creating problems and holes you'll need to becvoem VERY knowledgeable on to close up.
If you're willing to learn about OSes then adopt Linux as your back end.
If you DONT want to learn about the nasty side of server deployments then either go Windows or Apple native and rely on software bridges for when you want to share cross-platform.
As drawn you wil have a BIG headache - and maybe that learning experiecne is waht you want.
BUT you have a LOT of work making that reliable and secure.

Well, are there any decently priced switches available that have such a big number of ports ? I figured it would be maybe cheaper to use a few small switches. If that's not the case or if there may be big latency issues I would go for a single switch. That's something I don't really know.

Well a 50Gb/s throughput Procurve HP switch with 24 ports is about $400 ( better than buying 5 cheap ones at $80 each )
That's 100Mb each connection, so you MIGHT want to have a faster connection to the single server if you are going pure client/server model.
IF you're going to go pure distributed SERVICE then you'd want to go for multi gigabit connection - remember and do the math and see if you NEED the higher bandwith - no point buying gigabit connectivity if the fastest things you push are 10Mbit vide streams !! )
Gig switches are pushing $800-1000 and vary from 8-16 ports depending on needs. The expensive gig switches are plug-in modules so you can more readily mix 10/100/1000base sockets.
Liek all things these prices are coming down quickly.
So by the time you come to NEED a gig switch to replace a $400 24-port 100M switch you'll find it will likely cost about $400

Never read a networking book in my life actually

You shoudl before embarkign on this.
There are SOO many pitfalls and design choices you'll likely mess it up the first 6 times
A $40 book will save 100 times that in rebuying boxes later !!!

[Matra et Alpine]

For the server? Id but a cheap case, a pentium 266, (mobo, p/s - minimum), one or two high speed drives (maybe 10,000rpm). And id probably try to salvage some switches from an office building or school, thats what my brother did to get his.

Some caveats......
Bad choice if serving out to more than 1 or 2 machines simultaneously.
The server needs high I/O bandwidth for multiple machines and possibly multiple video/audio streaming.
IF the mobo is a server mobo then it might have the balance right.

However, you AER right that secodn hand PC parts are a LOT cheaper to build theis lot than you'd imagine - especially if you're going to run Linux.

My first network setup had a Linux firewall running on a $50 second hand PC, with a Linux fileserver running on a $200 second hand PC and a Linux DMZ backend on another $200 PC with 6 LAN cards. So for the pricely sum of $500 I had a completely secure annetwork awith distribution included.
Since LAN gateways had dropped to <$100 and did all of those jobs and no configuraiton issues I dumped the Linux boxes

[Lagonda]

Well a 50Gb/s throughput Procurve HP switch with 24 ports is about $400 ( better than buying 5 cheap ones at $80 each )
That's 100Mb each connection, so you MIGHT want to have a faster connection to the single server if you are going pure client/server model.
IF you're going to go pure distributed SERVICE then you'd want to go for multi gigabit connection - remember and do the math and see if you NEED the higher bandwith - no point buying gigabit connectivity if the fastest things you push are 10Mbit vide streams !! )
Gig switches are pushing $800-1000 and vary from 8-16 ports depending on needs. The expensive gig switches are plug-in modules so you can more readily mix 10/100/1000base sockets.
Liek all things these prices are coming down quickly.
So by the time you come to NEED a gig switch to replace a $400 24-port 100M switch you'll find it will likely cost about $400

Hmm that's cheaper than I thought. Now I really want full gigabit because

a)I want to be able to use XGrid (distributed computing component in Mac OS X 10.4 for use with Final Cut Pro and other apps).

b)I want it to be future proof. You never know what ya gonna get

And streaming uncompressed DV would be nice as well for video editing. A DV stream is about 30mbit that's a big chunk of a 100mbit connection. Add to that internet use (not that huge), the distributed rendering for video and all that while playing some music in the background. So as you can see I would prefer some more headroom.

You shoudl before embarkign on this.
There are SOO many pitfalls and design choices you'll likely mess it up the first 6 times
A $40 book will save 100 times that in rebuying boxes later !!!

I will.

I have a question right here: would the integration of my HTTP/FTP server with my Firewall pose any security threats ? My guess is yes, I don't think if it's a good idea to do that.

I'm going to draw a simplified diagram right now.

[Matra et Alpine]

Hmm that's cheaper than I thought. Now I really want full gigabit because

a)I want to be able to use XGrid (distributed computing component in Mac OS X 10.4 for use with Final Cut Pro and other apps).

You dont' need hi coms for grid computers to work.
The largest and most powerful grid computers are on 10/100 LAN interconnect.
The grid systems work best by giving each machien a medium amount of data and a lot of processing and then hierarchically combine the results.
ALSO, you're now thinking about deployeing an even MORE sensitive tool onto a network with no networking experience, no computing experience and no advanced systesm design experience. You'll waste a lot of money.
IF you liek the idea of doign grid work, then sign up to the many research gropus who now use distributed computation to solve BIG problems. SETI were one of the big users of the worlds "screensaver processor cycles".

And streaming uncompressed DV would be nice as well for video editing. A DV stream is about 30mbit that's a big chunk of a 100mbit connection.

At PEAK it might be. BUT as you're packetising it to stream it then
DVTS was demonstrated at the 98 supercomputer conference.
This was the developemnt of a standard for DV over IP packets ( as DV is a true digital stream ANY system must find a way to packetise it before going onto an IP network )

I think you are talking RAW DV data bit rate. In packetising it you can dramtically reduce the content with NO loss of information .
Anyway, here's the graph they presented ....

NOW, if you're streamign the DV to view it - as opposed to editign - then you dont' mind a compression techqieu with loss matched to the dispaly device. So you coudl easily 1/4 that bit rate !!!

The Add to that internet use (not that huge), the distributed rendering for video and all that while playing some music in the background. So as you can see I would prefer some more headroom.

Unless you're planning 2-3 seperate HDTV streaming feeds you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
and IF you're planning on streaming those, you better get youerself a faster processor

I have a question right here: would the integration of my HTTP/FTP server with my Firewall pose any security threats ? My guess is yes, I don't think if it's a good idea to do that.

NO.
Rember that HTTP/GTP/firewall are all just application dameons running on the computer. So if htey run on a computer each you STILL ahve to ensure proper security to stop each of them being compromised. SO if you put the right security in place then each service is secure and protected. THEN it doens't matter if they run on one or 3 machines. BUT, running them together DOES mean that if one machine is attacked succesfully then you lose all 3 services until you restore it.
Frankly, only mision critical networks woudl go to those lengths and even some of them dont'

[Lagonda]

You dont' need hi coms for grid computers to work.
The largest and most powerful grid computers are on 10/100 LAN interconnect.
The grid systems work best by giving each machien a medium amount of data and a lot of processing and then hierarchically combine the results.
ALSO, you're now thinking about deployeing an even MORE sensitive tool onto a network with no networking experience, no computing experience and no advanced systesm design experience. You'll waste a lot of money.
IF you liek the idea of doign grid work, then sign up to the many research gropus who now use distributed computation to solve BIG problems. SETI were one of the big users of the worlds "screensaver processor cycles".

uh, uh. I'm not interested in stuff like SETI. XGrid is a tool that can be combined with applications like shake, the next Final Cut Pro and Compressor for distributed rendering and compression of uncompressed video material. It's nothing like small packets used to solve equations and SETI crunching. These are big blocks of uncompressed video. In fact XGrid is open and a developer can easily add XGrid support to his app. One of the great things in the upcoming OS X releasse.

At PEAK it might be. BUT as you're packetising it to stream it then
DVTS was demonstrated at the 98 supercomputer conference.
This was the developemnt of a standard for DV over IP packets ( as DV is a true digital stream ANY system must find a way to packetise it before going onto an IP network )

I think you are talking RAW DV data bit rate. In packetising it you can dramtically reduce the content with NO loss of information .
Anyway, here's the graph they presented ....

NOW, if you're streamign the DV to view it - as opposed to editign - then you dont' mind a compression techqieu with loss matched to the dispaly device. So you coudl easily 1/4 that bit rate !!!

I will be capturing over the Ethernet network and editing video with zero compression. I KNOW for a fact that a 100mbit network can not support this. Even some badly designed gigabit networks can have dropped frames with DV streams. And dropped frames is not something you want or you can start over again with capturing. I have seen this happen with my own eyes. The perfect solution would be fibrechannel but I can't afford that.

I have no idea what DVTS is, sounds interesting, but I'm pretty sure Final Cut doesn't support it so that doesn't matter anyway.

Unless you're planning 2-3 seperate HDTV streaming feeds you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
and IF you're planning on streaming those, you better get youerself a faster processor

I know that those things don't take up a lot of bandwidth but I still want a fast ethernet for file copying and manipulation (big Photoshop files for example, I use A LOT of Photoshop). The idea is to store all my big PSDs, DV streams and music files on the media server so I need the fast access.

NO.
Rember that HTTP/GTP/firewall are all just application dameons running on the computer. So if htey run on a computer each you STILL ahve to ensure proper security to stop each of them being compromised. SO if you put the right security in place then each service is secure and protected. THEN it doens't matter if they run on one or 3 machines. BUT, running them together DOES mean that if one machine is attacked succesfully then you lose all 3 services until you restore it.
Frankly, only mision critical networks woudl go to those lengths and even some of them dont'

OK. Good to know that.