SFP+ compatibility check Cisco to Intel plus questions about switch

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
velocityg4

velocityg4

Glorious
Nov 21, 2006
5,390
471
46,440
I do a fair amount of Ethernet and WiFi networking. This is my first foray into fiber optics. Which appears to have considerably more complex requirements in cabling choices.

I’ll be connecting a server with an Intel X520-DA2 network card to a Cisco SG500x-24 switch. They’ll be right next to each other. So the run only needs to be a couple meters.

I want to verify compatibility of equipment for successfully making the connection.
Switch: Cisco SG500x-24-K9
https://www.amazon.com/Cisco-SG500X-24-K9-Layer-3-Switch/dp/B007UQRSRA
Switch Transceiver: 10Gtek for Cisco SFP-10G-SR
https://www.amazon.com/10Gtek-SFP-10G-SR-Transceiver-10GBASE-SR-300-meter/dp/B00U8Q7946/
NIC: Intel X520-DA2
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106044
NIC Transceiver: 10Gtek for Intel E10GSFPSR
https://www.amazon.com/10Gtek-Intel-E10GSFPSR-Transceiver-10GBASE-SR/dp/B00SWD0318/
Duplex Fiber Optic Cable
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B076WWQXLT/

Other questions
- I’d be connecting the Server to the Cisco SFP+ Uplink ports. Is this supported by the Cisco switch? I know I can normally do this with consumer oriented switches. I wanted to verify the uplinks can be used to directly attach a file server? I won’t be stacking any switches. The file server will be connected to the uplink and sharing to computers connected to the RJ45 GbE ports. One GbE port will go to the router.

- Is 10Gtek any good? Should I buy using genuine Cisco and Intel transceivers?

- Speaking of 10Gtek. How about using their NIC rather than the genuine Intel?
https://www.amazon.com/10Gtek-E10G42BTDA-Ethernet-Converged-X520-DA2/dp/B01DCZCA3O/

High reliability is of paramount importance. I also can’t be spending all day trying to make this work. Is there anything I’m missing from the list? Are there better options? I’d like to stick with Cisco on the switch. I’ve looked at older refurbished models but they use a lot more power.

I’ve considered using 10 gbase-T Ethernet instead of fiber optics. My issue is I need high IOPS not so much sequential throughput. Multiple databases will be opened, edited and saved every day by multiple users. The files aren’t that large but contain hundreds of thousands of entries. The server will be using two Samsung 970 Evo given their high IOPS. As far as I can tell fiber optics is a better choice for high IOPS. I realize that the Gigabit Ethernet ports won’t have that advantage. But when 10 people are trying to load different databases. I’d like to avoid swamping the server connection.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
smashjohn

smashjohn

Reputable
Aug 14, 2017
574
12
5,365
In my experience, OEM optics will provide the highest level of compatibility. Unfortunately, OEMs charge stupid prices for their transceivers. When the highest level of reliability is paramount, I'd recommend using OEM hardware.

I've used a variety of hardware over the years. Sometimes it works perfectly. Other times I get nominal packet loss; nothing people on the network notice but it shows up in my logs. I got some last year that wouldn't pass diagnostic information through my switches. The switch manufacturer wound up releasing a firmware update that fixed the issue.

I've never had any issues with OEM transceivers. I just can't stand spending 5x more for them... smh.

fwiw: The biggest problem with 3rd party is that you might need to return them and get different ones. Manufacturers will sometimes work with you to resolve an issue. If they work, they continue to work great; Problem will be apparent right away. It's worth talking to the transceiver manufacturer to see if they can guarantee compatibility with your cisco hardware; If they will, I'd buy them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
velocityg4

velocityg4

Glorious
Nov 21, 2006
5,390
471
46,440


That only lists as being for Cisco equipment. Will that work from a Cisco switch to an Intel NIC? I had thought of using those originally. My reading suggested those may not be compatible when using different manufacturers. Due to the SFP+ transceivers being manufacturer specific.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
smashjohn

smashjohn

Reputable
Aug 14, 2017
574
12
5,365
While I can't say with absolute authority, stack ports probably can't be used for client nodes. Stack ports essentially crosslink the backbone of a switch stack and as such aren't going through the same processing stack (rules & security) that other ports do. This is important for providing higher data density and lower latency over which why stack ports exist.

I also agree with everything kanewolf has said. Cisco is definitely more picky than other manufacturers. I think anyone who deals with fiber networks is overly accustomed to returning gear that "should have worked but didn't".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bill001g

Titan
Aug 9, 2012
28,283
2,743
125,640
I have had major issue even using SFP from the vendor between their different lines. HP and cisco seem to be the worst offenders. I had a number of SFP that appear identical all made by finisar with cisco stickers on them. Some were for a ASA firewall and others were for a 6500 series switch.

The asa didn't care but the 6500 would not accept the parts that has ASA numbers on them, got unsupported messages in the switch.

Seems it is checking some code number in the SFP module. I would not recommend any sfp in cisco gear that the manufacture does not guarantee will work. And cisco wonders why they are losing market share in the switch market.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kanewolf

kanewolf

Titan
Moderator
May 29, 2013
37,280
3,266
156,790


In a commercial setting, I quite agree. You pay the ransom for Cisco optics. It isn't clean from the original post if this is a home situation or a commercial situation.

For the cost of your Cisco switch (layer 3 managed) you could get more switch if you choose a different brand. Dell, HP, etc. Do you need a managed layer 3 switch or is a layer 2 switch all you really need?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
velocityg4

velocityg4

Glorious
Nov 21, 2006
5,390
471
46,440


It's for a small business.

I honestly don't know if it needs to be layer 2 or layer 3. I'd be happy with an unmanaged switch.

This is connecting to a database server. Multiple users will be opening, closing and editing databases with hundreds of thousands of entries in BCC Mail Manager. A horribly inefficient database program for mass market mailings. Fliers and such.

Data files aren't very big but they take a very long time to open and close as each database entry must be read on opening and closing. It can take upwards of ten minutes on a locally attached hard drive (they recommend SSD or RAM disks). So, I basically need high performance for lots of tiny files. The server will be pumping the data through with two 1TB Samsung 970 Evo (not in RAID). Which I chose for their high IOPS and reliability. I would like the option to be able to bond ports if more throughput is needed from the server. The goal is to not only centralize storage but speed everything up.

Depending on the time of year there can be five to fifteen people accessing databases. Either for editing or print runs. The less time they spend waiting the better.

I was looking at the Cisco switches for their high MPPS rating and good name. It's easier to sell someone on Cisco than let's say TP-Link, Ubiquity or some other brand most have never heard of.

All network security and DHCP will be taken care of by a Zyxel Zywall 110 router. I'm not doing any VPN or anything else fancy. Besides using the Zyxel to load balance two internet connections, provide some added security and separate the VOIP network from everything else.

Other files will also be on it. But it'll just be your standard Quickbooks file and word/excel/PDF documents. Along with various publishing files for mail print runs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
velocityg4

velocityg4

Glorious
Nov 21, 2006
5,390
471
46,440
Okay, I've been looking through the starter guide. Pages 13-14
PDF file: https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/csbms/Sx500/quick_start/en/500_Series_QSG_En.pdf
Non-Stacking standalone option:
• Ports XG3/S1 and XG4/S2 available as standard network ports
– Speed—1G or 10G
• Port S1, S2 and 5G are not available
• Ports XG1 and XG2 are available as standard network ports
– Speed—1G or 10G
Click to expand...

I should be able to use the SFP+ ports (XG1, XG2, XG3 and XG4) as 10GB ports for the server. Am I correct in my interpretation?
 
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