If I have a subnet that contains approx 40 hosts. If I am to have 2 servers max, that are strictly for the use of this subnet, should I have them on a seperate VLAN in the subnet so that they do not receive any unnecessary broadcasts etc. and to keep the traffic low, or should I leave them on the same VLAN as the workstations so that they will have slightly quicker access to the servers?
2
-
1This is mostly a matter of opinion and perhaps requirements we might not even have visibility to– Mike PenningtonApr 26, 2014 at 11:55
-
I realise it is a matter of opinion and that there is no right or wrong. I suppose I am just looking for the opinion of others to give me an outside perception. I would like to separate them for security, broadcast control & to group users but I am not sure if it is best practices for such a small subnet. Thanks for the reply.– GermaineJasonApr 26, 2014 at 11:58
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
In general, having multiple VLANs provides these benefits:
- They limit broadcasts by breaking up broadcasts domains
- They limit L2 failure domains, caused by misbehaving NIC cards
- They provide a convenient handle to apply various policies such as security, QoS, etc.
45 hosts are not likely going to generate excessive broadcasts, nor are they likely to cause L2 problems (unless you have multiple switches, redundant connections, etc).
Since you mention applying a security policy, that would be a good reason for a separate VLAN.
Otherwise, there isn't much advantage to multiple VLANs in a network this small.
answered Apr 26, 2014 at 15:30
-
Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate you giving me further insight into the topic. Apr 26, 2014 at 15:36