SG Broadband Community

I'm getting a new computer soon, and I now have the option of keeping my Nexland ISB SOHO as a router, or the option of turning my old Pentium 3 450mhz into a router.

What I intend to do for the old computer is to have it be a computer that is able to:

Host files for personal use (FTP)
Host occasional dedicated game servers
Be a personal radio station (shoutcast, or something similar)
Be a print server for client computers

The equipment I have to achieve this is:

Nexland ISB SOHO
P3 450
3com 990 NIC(s)
And the possibility of a 3com SuperStack II in the future

The old computer can be run under Windows Server 2003 if need be.

Finally, this will be a network of ~5-8 computers (friends come over sometimes, and I want to have some space for them)

I'm looking for the setup that will give the best network and WAN performance.

Please help me with advice and suggestions!

What package would you be running on the 2K3 box to do the work? Something like ISA? Or RRAS?

I'd probably stick with a router....nothing beats a nice hardware NAT on the outside IMO.

Hello YOSC

Thanks for replying so fast!

To be honest, I'm not very experienced with Windows Server 2003, or any server OS's for that matter, so I'll have to poke around a little more with the experimental install I have right now

Anyway, so you suggest I have the router first?

Would the setup look like:

WAN->router->switch->computers?

or

WAN->router->P1 switch ->additional computers
P2 computer
P3 computer
P4 computer
P# = port #

? Sorry for my crude diagrams

On the other hand, if I do decide to go with a software-based router, are there any advantages or disadvantages (performance, security,etc.) in any way?

WAN==>Router==>Switch==>All your computers is fine. Populate some of the ports on the router, leave a port for uplink to the switch, plop rest of computers and buddies for LAN parties in there.

If you're not having problems with your router, I'd stick with it. The Nexland is one of the fastest routers out there in that price range, granted they're out of business (Symantec bought them out)....but if it's still working, I'd stick with it.

Software router, you'll be more at risk in my option, because you'll have to have a 2nd NIC in your server, and have a NIC hanging out to the public. You'll have to lock her down, strip services, tweak and tune, and constantly monitor...you'll need antivirus on her, and, well, sticking Win2K3 server on an old PIII 450 will bog enough....add antivirus to the mix (oh by the way, most desktop antivirus program won't install on a server, you usually need to get a full server version of antivirus), I'm having a tough time believing it will perform as fast as a little router. Maybe if you put on some *nix OS, it'll be as fast as a router....but I still prefer a hardware solution anyways. A hardware router is locked down and secure right out of the box, a software solution you have to tweak, and monitor, and watch, and guard, and worry, etc etc.

Good advice, YOSC - I would not use windows as a router. In fact, if you go the sw route, I wouldn't install anything else other than the router sw.

That's also much more hw than you need for a router. Use the nexland and run your sw on the P3 behind it.

Alright! Thanks for the info guys!

Question: Would it be faster for me to use only one port of the router leading to the switch, and connect all the computers to that? I have superficial knowledge of how all this hardware works, but is it reasonable to believe that doing this will
allow the router to do its job and also allow the switch to do its job, therefore speeding things up?

So basically in this setup, the router only has to do one task, instead of routing AND switching.

I also understand that the ISB SOHO is a fast switch by itself, but does it compare to a 3com one?

Home routers are actually 2x different components in a hybrid device....a router on the WAN side, with it's own processor and memory, and a built in switch on the LAN side, with it's own hardware. The loads are separate. It's a very fast built in switch on the LAN side also, I've compared it to other entry level switches, and it blows them away. Chances are you'll have better LAN performance using the ISB's built in switch. Put your heavy use computers there...let your secondary computers and LAN buddies plug into an uplinked switch.

The differences in performance here are miniscule BTW, nothing you'll ever notice.

The differences in performance here are miniscule BTW, nothing you'll ever notice

Yep - even if you look back to your original question, you wouldn't be able to tell the diff btwn the p3 and nexland as a router. The advantage to the p3 as a router would be scalability. It could service 100+ users pretty easily. You aren't going anywhere near that.

We're talking thousandths of a second. Takes you longer than that to blink

Heh, okay, thanks for the info I just like my ping low lol.