48 Port Switch not working without another switch?

[Steve_1961]

Due to a previous 48 Port switch being zapped, I had replaced it with a 16 and a 32 Port switch on my network due to availability. I have now bought another 48 Port Switch. However, when I connect this to my Windows 2011 SBS server I lose the interneton the server. If I keep the 16 Port switch connected to the Server and the connect my new 48 port switch to that as well as the router, it works OK. I just cannot seem to work out why. Surely I should be able to just connect the one 48 port switch?
I have a bonded connection with 2 lines coming in to 2 TPLinks. These connect to 5 Port switch which then connects to my Draytek Router. The router then connects to the 16 and 48 Port switches and also to the server. The 2 switches are also connected together. This is not ideal but the only way I can get it to work????

 

[bill001g]

Sounds like a broadcast loop. You need to have each switch connected so there is only a single path for the data. The ports in the router actually act as a switch. Your 16 and 48 port switch are connected together though the router as well as connected via a direct cable.

It may have worked before because one of more of your switches support spanning tree. This protocol is used to block ports dynamically to prevent a loop. It really does nothing more than unplug one of the cables electronically. If you REALLY want to mess with redundancy then you can multi connect switches and use spanning tree but the failure rate is so low it tends to not be worth the hassle for smaller installations.

 

[Steve_1961]

Sounds like a broadcast loop. You need to have each switch connected so there is only a single path for the data. The ports in the router actually act as a switch. Your 16 and 48 port switch are connected together though the router as well as connected via a direct cable.

It may have worked before because one of more of your switches support spanning tree. This protocol is used to block ports dynamically to prevent a loop. It really does nothing more than unplug one of the cables electronically. If you REALLY want to mess with redundancy then you can multi connect switches and use spanning tree but the failure rate is so low it tends to not be worth the hassle for smaller installations.

 

[Steve_1961]

Sounds like a broadcast loop. You need to have each switch connected so there is only a single path for the data. The ports in the router actually act as a switch. Your 16 and 48 port switch are connected together though the router as well as connected via a direct cable.

It may have worked before because one of more of your switches support spanning tree. This protocol is used to block ports dynamically to prevent a loop. It really does nothing more than unplug one of the cables electronically. If you REALLY want to mess with redundancy then you can multi connect switches and use spanning tree but the failure rate is so low it tends to not be worth the hassle for smaller installations.

Hi,

Thanks for your response. It seems to me that I should be able to just use the 48 Port switch though. I cannot understand why I can't, and seemingly need to create a loop to get things working????

 

[bill001g]

It should be as simple as plugging 1 cable into the router and plugging the server into the switch. Not sure what to suggest it appears the connection between the router and switch does not come up but switch-switch does. You should see lights that tell you if the port comes active.

Only other thing would be if this is a managed switch and there is something that needs to be configured. Most I have seen have all port active on a single vlan by factory default.