[BETTER] Download Switch Printer

I would like to switch my printer on/off from my raspberry. I would wire the relay between the 230VAC and the printer's 24V PSU. The printer has an AC heated bed (it's connected to the PSU's in connectors).

Several staff members mentioned the printers were slow to start printing, checked them out and couldn't find anything obvious, but the switch showed brown on the ports the printers were connected to. (error message was high proportion of Ethernet collisions)

Download Switch Printer

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://tiurll.com/2y4IRz 🔥

Now I did try all the usual duplex, half duplex, fix speed etc on the Meraki port, but no changes, and it hasn't happened before in the two years the switches were in, so I am surmising a firmware upgrade might be to blame, so I am waiting till the next one and will take out the dumb switch and check again.

If the port on the switch and the printer is set to auto-negotiate it's speed and duplex, look at that brown port and check how duplex have been set by the auto-negotiation. If your switch port indicate that it is working in half-duplex and that you have collision, I would believe it's a firmware issue. As there is collision on that port, it's tell me that the printer have successfully negotiated and set itself to full duplex, but the switch have not because of the collision counter.

The MS350 will not even recognize that the printer is connected. Moved the printer to a port on an MS220 that is behind the MS350 and the switch port came up, but with a high number of ethernet collision errors. Forcing the port to 100/half (thats what it auto negotiated) cleared the error state.

Hi, I would say the issue is more located at the printer. Try by updating the printer NIC driver, check the configuration of the NIC itself. It's not working with two differents switches! It's more likely to be something else than the switches (bad network cable, printer's NIC driver, printer's NIC itself)

I have 22 HP MFPs in this building and I have no issues like the one you describe. The printer models are the 67560 and the 87660 Running a mix of MS250s and MS42Ps, the printers would be plugged into one of those two models.

One thing I do when I set up the printers is turn off all services on the HP side that are not necessary in my environment, like multicast, Bonjour, AirPrint and IPv6. These services are on by default. I don't know how they interact with Meraki and I don't plan on finding out because I don't need them.

IOGEAR's USB 2.0 Automatic Printer Switch allows two PCs and/or Macs to share one printer or multi-function printer. Simply submit a print job and the printer automatically* switches to the preferred computer. The switch also enables two computers to easily share one external hard drive, scanner, or any USB device. No more plugging and unplugging between computers.

* Automatic switch function is software based and only available with USB printer or the printer function of a multi-function printer. For connecting and using other types of USB devices, you can switch by using the push-button on the USB switch or with the included software.

IP 192.168.1.5 has a wireless connection to a Linksys router (192.168.1.1) which then is connected to a switch. The switch is connected to a server (192.168.0.2). My printer has IP address of 192.168.0.8. Internet connection is fine on 192.168.1.5.

The reason for connecting this way is that, the server does not release wireless signal. In order to get wireless signal the Router is connected to the switch. The server is a computer server that only has one outgoing LAN port. Plus, due to inconvinience physical locations, I do not have option to change the physical locations and the way it is connected already.

It seems that you connect Linksys router to the switch because you want to have wireless accesspoint. IP 192.168.1.5 would be a laptop that has wireless connected to Linksys router. Is it correct? The printer is directly connected in wire to the Switch.

Add a specific route on each Windows machine that you need to access the devices. route add 1912.168.0.8 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 from the machine that wants to access the printer, and route add 1912.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.2 from the machine that wants to access the server. Similar to the NAT settings. But this is the most restrictive, as it would require custom settings on each computer.

The problem you have at the moment is twofold. Firstly, the AP/router doesn't even have a secondary IP for the 192.168.0.x network so it won't even be able to send traffic to the printer or server from the AP itself. Secondly, there is no route that allows devices to talk to each other across both of those subnets.

This DHCP will also serve all the clients off the switch side.If you want those statically set up (which is a good idea) then change them to be 192.168.1.2 (server) and 192.168.1.8 (printer) and set their subnet subnet masks to be 255.255.255.0, default router 192.168.1.1 & DNS 192.168.1.1. Because the last number in the IP address is below 100 you won't have any issues with the DHCP server stealing those addresses.

One fix is to set the power save mode of the printer to a less aggressive setting, but that raises the sleep power from 0.9 W to 36 W. Putting a small consumer switch between the printer and switch (with a power draw of ~5 W) also solves the problem, but adds to maintenance and cost.

Log in or Sign up to hide this advert. 2006/10/25griffmasterInactiveThread StarterJoined:2006/09/12Messages:88Likes Received:0 At the moment its connected to the router (RJ45) which will be replaced by a switch. I just wasnt sure if it was worth using the Printer Management that SBS 2003 provides as the printer does have a USB also. We are only 4 users (soon to be 6) who print often, but will be looking to replace printer with a better one (higher ppm, more capacity etc) so was wondering if I should choose one to be connected to the switch and managed itself, or to get one that Windows server can manage.

Thanks for your advice Griffmastergriffmaster,#32006/10/25Bill CastnerInactiveJoined:2006/08/30Messages:1,980Likes Received:0 . Small network with seperate router and a switch. Connect it to the switch.

. Medium to large network, workgroup printer. Connect to the switch closest to the workgroup.

. Medium to large network, printer everyone uses. Connect to a central switch.

Could you explain how these preferenes were drawn? It should make no difference which switch as long as you do not exceed ethernet cable limits. Users Helping Users

Microsoft MVP - Windows Networking

VSOP AUMHA Forum

MVM BroadBandReports / DSLR

Bill Castner,#42006/10/26ReggieBInactiveAlumniJoined:2004/05/12Messages:2,786Likes Received:2 On a network with multiple switches, the slowest part of the network is the connection between the switches.

A switch has a backbone within it, which is in effect a very fast network. On a perfect switch the backbone is able to handle the maximum traffic from all the ports simultaniously. So a 24 port 100Mb/s switch would have a backbone that will communicate at 2.4Gb/s. However, most switches actually don't quite hit this level because the likelihood of all ports having full load simultaniously is quite low. Even so the speed of a switch backbone is always many times greater than that of an individual port and often in the Gb/s order. In a large network, the backbone speed is often a good indication of how well a switch will behave in high load conditions. The backbone speed is often a key difference between cheap and expensive switches.

The speed and capacity of the switch backbone ensures that when one device connected directly to a port on that switch, connects to another device connected directly to a port on that switch, its communication will not be throttled by it having to share the connection with traffic between other ports.

If you have two switches and connect them via a normal network connection, that connection is a bottle neck. For example, if two devices on switch one are simultaneously trying to send traffic at 100Mb/s (200Mb/s in total) to two devices on switch two, the 100Mb/s connection between the switches is not able to handle all that traffic. It has to slow the traffic from the sender and the effect is that each communication is limited to less than 50Mb/s each.

Therefore, if you have a workgroup of ten users connected to a single switch and you have a workgroup printer that is mainly used just by those ten users, you should connect the printer to the same switch. With this arrangement, any of the ten users can send traffic to the printer without that traffic causing any loss of network performance to any other user on the network.

If you connect the printer to another switch, any print traffic sent to that printer will have to go over the interconnection bottleneck. So during printing the bandwidth available over that connection will be reduced for other users.

If everyone uses the printer, you have little choice but to connect it to the core switch. If you connect it to a workgroup switch, that workgroup will suffer reduced network speed to the rest of the network while the printer is used. Co-author of Ruby on Rails Enterprise Application Development, published by Packt publishing.ReggieB,#52006/10/26TonyTSuperGeekStaffJoined:2002/01/18Messages:9,068Likes Received:396 Wow! Nice explanation.

So..in the case of a small home net or a small office net where there exists only a router w/ built in switch w/ say 8 ports, and the ports currently are used by workstations...to add a network printer it would then be best to expand the network by adding another switch, but connect the printer to the router where one of the workstations was connected. (move 2 workstations to the second switch & connect printer & second switch to router) Correct?

2004-2010

No one has any right to force data on you and command you to believe it or else.

If it is not true for you, it isn't true.TonyT,#62006/10/26ReggieBInactiveAlumniJoined:2004/05/12Messages:2,786Likes Received:2 TonyT said:Wow! Nice explanation.Click to expand...Thank you.

TonyT said:So..in the case of a small home net or a small office net where there exists only a router w/ built in switch w/ say 8 ports, and the ports currently are used by workstations...to add a network printer it would then be best to expand the network by adding another switch, but connect the printer to the router where one of the workstations was connected. (move 2 workstations to the second switch & connect printer & second switch to router) Correct?Click to expand...On the network you describe, the main bottle neck is the internet connection. This is always lower capacity than your internal network. As soon as you add a switch, you are best moving as many users to the new switch as you can. Also move the printer to the new switch.

With this arrangement all LAN traffic will go over dedicated connections (directly between a computer/printer and the switch) and the switch backbone. The only traffic going over the router to switch connection will be traffic destined for the internet. That traffic is throttled by the low bandwidth connection between the router and your ISP, and therefore will always be less than the capacity between the router and the switch.

This means if I had a fully populated eight port router and wanted to add a switch, I'd look to buy at least a 16 port switch.

However, I should add that if you only have eight computers, you would have to work hard to put enough load on the network to have a problem with the less efficient arrangement (splitting users/printer over both the router and switch). For most SOHO (small office, home office) networks, it isn't going to have a huge affect unless you are regularly moving large files around.

If you have ten or more users, or need to squeeze the most out of your network, then it is worth looking at your network topography and minimising the bottlenecks most users have to transmit over during their network usage. Co-author of Ruby on Rails Enterprise Application Development, published by Packt publishing.ReggieB,#72006/10/26Bill CastnerInactiveJoined:2006/08/30Messages:1,980Likes Received:0 Three comments:

"On a perfect switch the backbone is able to handle the maximum traffic from all the ports simultaniously. So a 24 port 100Mb/s switch would have a backbone that will communicate at 2.4Gb/s. "

And similar claims. You no matter what have a many-to-one, whether on the backbone or using cable between switches. The bandwidth is 100mbs at full duplex and not less and not more.

Secondly, we are talking printers. Show me one that is bottlenecked in the three scenarios asked about:

. Small network with seperate router and a switch. Connect it to the switch.

. Medium to large network, workgroup printer. Connect to the switch closest to the workgroup.

. Medium to large network, printer everyone uses. Connect to a central switch.

I have never seen a printer capable of being "bottlenecked" even by your claim of 50mbs connections.

Microsoft MVP - Windows Networking

VSOP AUMHA Forum

MVM BroadBandReports / DSLR

Bill Castner,#82006/10/26ReggieBInactiveAlumniJoined:2004/05/12Messages:2,786Likes Received:2 Bill Castner said:Three comments:

"On a perfect switch the backbone is able to handle the maximum traffic from all the ports simultaniously. So a 24 port 100Mb/s switch would have a backbone that will communicate at 2.4Gb/s. "

And similar claims. You no matter what have a many-to-one, whether on the backbone or using cable between switches. The bandwidth is 100mbs at full duplex and not less and not more.Click to expand...No - the bandwidth of traffic passing in and out of the ports is "100mbs at full duplex and not less and not more ". The switch itself has to operate internally much faster to be able to maintain those bandwidths across all its ports.

Have a look at the specification of this HP switch. This 10/100 switch has a switching capacity of 9.6Gb/s. That is the bandwidth that the internal workings of the switch can handle. The backbone within the switch has to be able to handle this bandwidth if the traffic between two ports isn't to be affected by the traffic between two other ports. Or have a look at this Cisco switch spec. Table 2 two-thirds down the page. "32 Gbps switching fabric (Catalyst 2960G-24TC, Catalyst 2960G-48TC) "

Secondly, we are talking printers. Show me one that is bottlenecked in the three scenarios asked about:

. Small network with seperate router and a switch. Connect it to the switch.

. Medium to large network, workgroup printer. Connect to the switch closest to the workgroup.

. Medium to large network, printer everyone uses. Connect to a central switch.

I have never seen a printer capable of being "bottlenecked" even by your claim of 50mbs connections.Click to expand...Many users sending print jobs to a printer over a single 100Mb/s at the same time may well cause a performance drop. However, more importantly, if someone is hogging the connection between switches doing something like transferring a 1Gb of data, your printing will be slowed down if you also need to pass your print job over the same link at the same time.

Finally, in most SOHO settings the router is also a switch. There is no reason to set up the straw man claim that the printing would occur on the WAN side of the router just because the workstations are connected physicly to a router.Click to expand...I think you have miss-read what I wrote. I did not suggest that printing would be done on the WAN. The situation I was describing was where users were on one switch and were connecting to a printer attached to the router by its switch port. That is that to connect to the printer the route looked like this:

[Use_PC]=100Mb/s_link=[Switch]=100Mb/s_link=[Router]=100Mb/s_link=[Printer] Co-author of Ruby on Rails Enterprise Application Development, published by Packt publishing.ReggieB,#92006/10/26TonyTSuperGeekStaffJoined:2002/01/18Messages:9,068Likes Received:396 OK. So basically, a determining factor in all of the above scenarios is the actual size of the print job. Printers do have their own internal ram to cache the print job. So for a single page doc or a couple of pages, the printing won't be noticable slower, but for a large print job, when the printer's memory is exceeded, then I se that printing could be slowed because the workstation must wait until the printer memory is freed up to send the print job.

I imagine an office w/ US accountants printing lots of tax returns in April to a networked printer...

2004-2010

No one has any right to force data on you and command you to believe it or else.

If it is not true for you, it isn't true.TonyT,#102006/10/26ReggieBInactiveAlumniJoined:2004/05/12Messages:2,786Likes Received:2 TonyT said:So basically, a determining factor in all of the above scenarios is the actual size of the print job.Click to expand...And the amount of other traffic on the network.

One way to think of it is that the switch is a concentrator. It takes all the traffic coming in on all its ports and handles it all and then pushes it out again.

Perhaps this will help

User1===[ s ]

User2===[ w ]

User3===[ i ]====[switch 2]==resources connected to switch 2

User4===[ t ]

User5===[ c ]

User6===[ h ]

Switch 2 can be a dedicated switch or the switch ports of a router. All the traffic for all the users accessing the resources connected to switch 2 have to pass over the single connection between the two switches. That's potentially 600Mb/s of traffic.

If you put the printer on the left hand switch, printing won't have to contend with this potential over capacity on the switch to switch connection.

As I stated earlier, on a small network the effect is going to be small. But as you scale up you need to think about these potential bottle necks. Co-author of Ruby on Rails Enterprise Application Development, published by Packt publishing.ReggieB,#112006/10/26Bill CastnerInactiveJoined:2006/08/30Messages:1,980Likes Received:0 It is not true that the only way to connect switches is with Cat5 or similar cable.

. There is 1gb cable connections

. There is fiber

. There are switches whose backplane is externally extensible

. There are extensible switches

As I stated earlier, on a small network the effect is going to be small.Click to expand...Read: The effect is non-existent when the target device in all of this is a printer. This is a very low bandwidth network peripheral.

Spend more time concerned with the placement of your servers than your printers. Locate your printers close to where they will be used and worry about better things than optomizing their physical port connections. Users Helping Users

Microsoft MVP - Windows Networking

VSOP AUMHA Forum

MVM BroadBandReports / DSLR

Bill Castner,#122006/10/27ReggieBInactiveAlumniJoined:2004/05/12Messages:2,786Likes Received:2 Bill Castner said:It is not true that the only way to connect switches is with Cat5 or similar cable.

. There is 1gb cable connections

. There is fiber

. There are switches whose backplane is externally extensible

. There are extensible switchesClick to expand...I think that proves my point. If the network speed everywhere was the same you wouldn't need these special fast interconnects to overcome the bottlenecks.

Bill Castner said:Read: The effect is non-existent when the target device in all of this is a printer. This is a very low bandwidth network peripheral.Click to expand...For a small business, users printing out large reports, colour brochures and the like, can generate a lot of of network traffic.

Bill Castner said:Spend more time concerned with the placement of your servers than your printers.Click to expand...Yes, I agree with that. Server location is more important.

Bill Castner said:Locate your printers close to where they will be used and worry about better things than optomizing their physical port connections.Click to expand...Unless you want to optimize your network performance. You only have to do it once, so locate the printer in the best place and then forget about it. Co-author of Ruby on Rails Enterprise Application Development, published by Packt publishing.ReggieB,#132006/10/27Bill CastnerInactiveJoined:2006/08/30Messages:1,980Likes Received:0 I think that proves my point. If the network speed everywhere was the same you wouldn't need these special fast interconnects to overcome the bottlenecks.Click to expand...What an optomistic way to view that your point is made moot by these connection types.

In addition, some backplane extensions are there more to avoid high hop counts than fears of bottlenecks. Users Helping Users

Microsoft MVP - Windows Networking

VSOP AUMHA Forum

MVM BroadBandReports / DSLR

Bill Castner,#142006/10/27ReggieBInactiveAlumniJoined:2004/05/12Messages:2,786Likes Received:2 Bill Castner said:What an optomistic way to view that your point is made moot by these connection types.Click to expand...I'm always optimistic when I know I'm right.

Bill Castner said:In addition, some backplane extensions are there more to avoid high hop counts than fears of bottlenecks.Click to expand...High hop count isn't a big issue with switches as each connection in itself comprises a single ethernet bus. Hop counts were a big problem with hubs, where all ports shared the same bus, and therefore latency over one device effected the rest of the shared network.

We still return to the fact that if the connection bottleneck between switches wasn't an issue manufacturers wouldn't have to develop special high speed interconnects such as stacking interconnects (backplane extensions) and teamed uplinks. Co-author of Ruby on Rails Enterprise Application Development, published by Packt publishing.ReggieB,#15(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)Show Ignored Content /* /* ]]> */ Share This PageTweet Log in with FacebookLog in with TwitterLog in with GoogleYour name or email address:Do you already have an account?No, create an account now.Yes, my password is:Forgot your password? Stay logged inSign up now!Staff Online NowAdmin.Steve R JonesDonateWindowsBBSForums>Internet & Networking>Networking (Hardware & Software)>

// ForumsForumsQuick LinksSearch ForumsRecent Posts MembersMembersQuick LinksNotable MembersRegistered MembersCurrent VisitorsRecent ActivityNew Profile PostsDonateUser GuideUser GuideQuick LinksRulesMore...More...Quick LinksHelpWithWindows.comRoseCitySoftware.comRecommended LinksMenu Search titles onlyPosted by Member:Separate names with a comma. e24fc04721