When dealing with large-scale computer networks (200+ nodes in your case), switch interconnection topology becomes critical for maintaining optimal throughput. Fiber Channel (FC) switches like your 3Com units with dual fiber ports offer several stacking options, each with distinct performance characteristics.

// Pseudocode illustrating topology differences
const backboneTopology = {
  centralSwitch: 'FC-Backbone',
  connectedSwitches: ['Switch1', 'Switch2', ..., 'Switch12'],
  latency: 'low',
  faultTolerance: 'high'
};

const daisyChainTopology = {
  connectionPath: 'Switch1 <-> Switch2 <-> ... <-> Switch12 <-> Switch1',
  latency: 'variable',
  faultTolerance: 'medium'
};

For your 200-computer setup across 12 switches, I strongly recommend the backbone approach:

• Dedicate one switch as the FC backbone (preferably highest-bandwidth model)
• Configure full-mesh connections from each edge switch to the backbone
• Enable proper trunking/LACP on fiber links

# Sample network configuration (Cisco-style)
interface port-channel 48
 description FC Backbone Trunk
 switchport mode trunk
 switchport trunk allowed vlan 100-110
 spanning-tree portfast trunk
!
interface GigabitEthernet1/1/1
 channel-group 48 mode active
!
interface GigabitEthernet1/1/2
 channel-group 48 mode active

While theoretical FC stacking limits can reach 16-32 switches, practical constraints emerge:

Here's a Python snippet to calculate optimal paths in your proposed topology:

import networkx as nx

def analyze_topology():
    G = nx.Graph()
    # Add backbone switch
    G.add_node("Backbone", type='core')
    
    # Add edge switches
    for i in range(1, 13):
        G.add_node(f"Switch{i}", type='edge')
        G.add_edge("Backbone", f"Switch{i}", 
                  bandwidth=20, # Gbps
                  latency=0.1)  # ms
    
    # Calculate average path characteristics
    print(f"Diameter: {nx.diameter(G)}")
    print(f"Average latency: {nx.average_shortest_path_length(G, weight='latency'):.2f}ms")
    
analyze_topology()

When dealing with 200+ computer networks, proper switch interconnection becomes critical. The core question revolves around whether to implement a backbone topology or daisy-chain configuration using available fiber ports. Let's analyze both approaches with technical specifics.

// Theoretical bandwidth calculation for backbone topology
const totalSwitches = 12;
const fiberPortsPerSwitch = 2;
const backboneBandwidth = (totalSwitches * fiberPortsPerSwitch) / 2; 
// Assuming full-duplex connections

// Daisy-chain bandwidth calculation
let daisyChainBandwidth = fiberPortsPerSwitch;
// Limited by the single path between endpoints

For your 3Com switch environment with 12 units, I recommend:

• Create a core backbone switch (if budget permits)
• Connect each access switch using both fiber ports in LACP configuration
• For redundancy, implement spanning-tree protocols

# Sample LACP configuration for backbone connection
interface Port-channel1
 switchport mode trunk
 switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,10,20
 channel-group 1 mode active
!
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1
 channel-group 1 mode active
!
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/2
 channel-group 1 mode active

While theoretical stacking limits exist (typically 8-16 switches depending on model), practical limitations include:

• Control plane overhead
• Broadcast domain size
• Management complexity

# Verify fiber channel connections
show interface brief
show etherchannel summary
show spanning-tree summary

Remember to test actual throughput using tools like iperf3 after implementation to validate your design choices.