Communication - Phone vs. Email vs. Voicemail

Nov. 10, 2010 - PRLog -- This is a kind of boring entry,X2-10GB-SR but I'm on vacation and since I often write about things related to my own reality, here goes. I had reason (unrelated to work) to think about the different methods of electronic communication and outline them in my mind. Because the method I receive communication is often instrumental as to how I organize my work, I thought it would be useful...

Email - I send three types of emails. The first is the quick or low priority response. I send things I hope will just be immediately deleted or read whenever. The second is documentation. When I want to layout something that someone can refer to GLC-T in the future, I'll send an email so that they can easily save the information however they like. The third is when I want to be on record. Email is very traceable and so so easy to forward. I never write something in an email that I'm not ready to have accidentally forwarded. I have gotten more calls than you would believe from people wondering if an email they just sent could be retrieved really quickly before someone downloaded their mail.

Telephone - I hate the telephone. Telephone calls demand an answer. Good voicemails demand a call back at which point, I'm jumping back in to someone's flow, demanding to respond. For urgent things, it's nearly the best vehicle. Urgent is defined differently by different people, and it can be challenging to organize and prioritize phone calls without human or electronic screening, which can be a somewhat blunt instrument.

The child of the phone call and email is the text or instant message. I'm much more of a fan of these. They're short and immediate, but they don't demand someone's undivided attention. If they do, they should be a phone call. If they're not short, or not immediate, they should be an email.

In the end, I don't know if it's possible to pre-emptively organize one's inbound communication. I also don't know if it's possible to always predict the effectiveness of one's outbound communication on the recipient. But I think it's a helpful consideration to make.

I changed the zones for this question from --Optical Networking --Networking Cables --Networking Hardware to --Optical Networking --Networking Cables --Networking Hardware --Broadband Internet --Networking EE allows you to assign your question to up to three zones, and it almost always makes sense to assign your question to more than one. (Moderators, Admins, and ZAs can assign a 'neglected' question to up to five zones.) modus_operandi EE Admin
maxi86, A message has been sent to some additional experts asking them to review your question. We will check back again later to see if you are getting the help you need. GLC-LH-SM This request included Experts from Optical Networking, Broadband Internet, Networking Cables, Networking Hardware, Networking and included sub-zones, where applicable. Thank you for using Experts Exchange, modus_operandi EE Admin http://www.sfplustransceiver.com/

So when you run this cable, you have a pair like this, But when you connect them to the other side , they need to be crossed over. With the fiber transcievers the laser is only sending on one strand, so the other side (or other switch) needs to be sending down on the opposite strand. So if they are connected straight through you will not see a link at all and the port will be down/down. So what you need to do is make sure you cross it on one of the ends. That usually means you have to snap the piece of plastic that holds the two ends of the fiber together and reverse it. It doesn't matter where you make this swap. Sometimes its easier to snap the plastic that holds the SC ends together and then swap them. The main thing is this - On each switch sfp there is a send and a receive. The single fiber strand that is on the sending end of switch A needs to connect to the receiving end on switch B and vice versa.

http://www.sfplustransceiver.com/cisco-glc-t GLC-T
http://www.sfplustransceiver.com/cisco-x2-10gb-sr X2-10GB-SR
http://www.sfplustransceiver.com/cisco-x2-10gb-lr X2-10GB-LR

Exactly....on switch B on the patch cable, disconnect the ends and swap them around. Just agreeing - no points here please.

I have to say though -6db loss seems a lot for a 150m cable. But do make sure that the transmit/receive is correct as stated above.
thank you guys for the answers but i am aware of the send/recieve and that they have to be crossed we tried them stright and crossed but no connection the company came again and did splicing, they did LC to LC directly on the 150m cable but still no connetion :S we will cancel the contract with them and deal with another company on monday so switch side, port are no shut and configured correctly and working with the short cable my final questions are: 1- what should be the loss (850nm, 62.5/125, 150m cable) 2- is there any setting to strengthen the signal on the switch 3- we tested with a fluke and it was given open,unknown but when we did the laster test there was a light on the other side on each side of the cable, what does this mean? does it mean that the termination and connectors are okay
No setting adjustments to GLC-SX-MM the gbics, no. If the Fluke says it's open, then there is a break somewhere. A light would still pass the break, but it would cause attenuation which kills the signal.

the connecters are pre-made and spliced LC, is it them or the cable
Could be either. When we have issues like this, we simply replace the connector first since it's the easiest attempt. If it still comes back bad on the fluke, then we test the cable, find the break and either repair it or pull new cable - it depends on the length. In your case it's quite short, so replace the cable. It may very well be a termination issue, certainly. I can't see them breaking cable at 150M. We have runs up to 30km and haven't broken cable. It does happen, however.
Keep in mind that the gbic or sfp could be bad as well. I have seen this many many times.
you saying that those guys did lc-lc splicing to do it directly and it was still bad? Could be possible they got the pairs mixed up when you did the testing on your 3m cable -- do you physically take the cisco switch to the rack rack and test there with all the SC-SC couples and things in the picture too? At the moment it does look like the Long run is the issue, but i will hold judgement because it did pass the laser test and thats quite odd.

# # #

SFPlus Transceiver is the industry's leading manufacturer & supplier of compatible optical transceivers. We produce and stock for a full range of transceivers such as SFP Plus (SFP+), X2, XENPAK, XFP, SFP and GBIC.