Programmer Humor

32635 readers

2581 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Feyter@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

BurningTurtle@programming.dev

pylapp@programming.dev

179

Network (lemmy.zip)

submitted 2 days ago by shark_byte@lemmy.zip to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

All hail redundancy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shark_byte@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

care to explain more? of course the redundant configurations haven't been enabled, so you can see STP doing it's thing.

if everything is done right, then where's the failure point?

[–] pleb_maximus@piefed.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I see the problem with Switches 2 and 5. Because they don't help anything if Switch 3 or respectively 4 go down. They aren't connected to the Routers on their own. So with the current setup you could get rid of the whole row of Switches and not lose any redundancy.
Also, you could think of aggregating your cross connections in Port Channels. Might as well use your ports if you are paying for them anyways.

Oh, and are the WiFi and LAN supposed to be the same net? Because if they are, you don't need to go over the routers to connect between the two of them.