Switch for home LAN: Gb + 802.3ad + PoE

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

solitone

Prominent
Apr 2, 2017
2
0
510
I'm in the process of cabling my home, and I'm after a switch with the following features:

  • ■16+ Gigabit ports (I've got 29 outlets, but will be using only 10 for the time being);
    ■Dynamic Link Aggregation (IEEE 802.3ad);
    ■PoE.
I'd like to have 802.3ad since I've got a NAS supporting it (QNAP TS-251+), and a couple of PCs plus several smart devices will access it concurrently (for data access and backups the former, and for multimedia the latter). I would need Power over Ethernet to power 3 access points.

With these features and at a good price I've seen the TP-Link TL-SG2210P that, but it only has 8 ports. The Netgear GS516TP and the D-Link DGS-1210-28P have 16 and 24 ports respectively, but cost 3 times as much.

Have you got any switch with the features I need that sells at a good price?

An alternative would be the TP-Link TL-SG3216, with 16 ports but witout PoE, and adding a 4 port PoE injector.
 
Solution
B
I suspect most the cost difference is related to the PoE power budget which represent how many port can actually be running PoE at the same time. Pricing on this type of equipment is still all over the place. This used to be outrageously expensive equipment with feature you could only get on commercial gear.

Do not get your hopes up on port aggregation. It is really stupid it selects the path base on ip and port. A single session will only use a single cable and it does not even look at utilization so it could put multiple sessions on the same cable leaving the other unused. It mostly works when you have a very large number of client machines accessing a central server. The fewer machine you have the more chance you have to...
Sort by date Sort by votes
B

bill001g

Titan
Aug 9, 2012
28,363
2,766
125,640
I suspect most the cost difference is related to the PoE power budget which represent how many port can actually be running PoE at the same time. Pricing on this type of equipment is still all over the place. This used to be outrageously expensive equipment with feature you could only get on commercial gear.

Do not get your hopes up on port aggregation. It is really stupid it selects the path base on ip and port. A single session will only use a single cable and it does not even look at utilization so it could put multiple sessions on the same cable leaving the other unused. It mostly works when you have a very large number of client machines accessing a central server. The fewer machine you have the more chance you have to not get good utilization.

It may not matter there are many bottlenecks in disk systems. You have to design a disk system that can actually product data at rates more than 1gbit. Most times this means using enterprise type of drives or SSD devices. If you look at the test rates for nas using the more common red drivers in raid you will see they do not get much more than 1gbit anyway.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Solution
S

solitone

Prominent
Apr 2, 2017
2
0
510

In my scenario I have a couple of PCs that can access the NAS at the same time. I'm aware that port aggregation wouldn't translate in higher transfer speed for a single PC, but I hope it would be result in overall speed when both PCs are transferring files, as QNAP claims [1]. Another thing I hope is that my other devices (smart-boxes and -TVs) would have some spare bandwidth available even when both PCs are accessing the NAS.


Yes, this is one thing I should defenitely investigate, considering I've got Western Digital Red drives. QNAP don't specify what drives they used in their tests.

++EDIT++
It seems that QNAP TS-251+ can manage transfer speed higher than 1Gbps. In a PC&Tech Authority test [2], they measured a read speed greater than 1700Gbps, using the same HDDs and the same RAID mode I use:
We measured a whopping 221MB/sec read speed on the TS-251+ while using twin Western Digital 4TB Red WD40EFRX drives in RAID 1 mode.
Click to expand...

++EDIT 2++

The internal transfer rate of the WD40EFRX drive is just 150 MB/s [3]. Therefore the higher read speed measured should depend on the RAID 1 level used. However I assume write speed wouldn't be higher than 150 MB/s, hence marginally higher than single link 1Gbps speed.

Depending on the nature of I/O load, random read performance of a RAID 1 array may equal up to the sum of each member's performance,while the write performance remains at the level of a single disk [4].
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom