Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

advise on gigabit switch?

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 10:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi,

I am a little bit dazzled by all the different types of switches around: managed, unmanaged, layer2, layer3, 1000BASE-T, 1000BASE-SX.
Could anybody give me an advise on what switch to use in the following system:

- at least 5 nodes will act as data source
- one node acts as data destination
- all nodes are equipped with 1Gb nic's
- all data source nodes can send data to the destination node simultaniously
- the aggragate data rates from the source nodes will not exceed 50MByte/sec

TIA,
Friso

More about : advise gigabit switch

Anonymous
June 17, 2004 10:08:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <40D1C1F0.9090401@idontwantsp.am>,
Friso Brugmans <friso@idontwantsp.am> wrote:
:I am a little bit dazzled by all the different types of switches around: managed, unmanaged, layer2, layer3, 1000BASE-T, 1000BASE-SX.
:Could anybody give me an advise on what switch to use in the following system:

I would not advise using unmanaged: if you use a managed switch you
have the possibility of monitoring the switch for error conditions.

Layer 2 would be suitable if everything is in the same IP address range,
OR/ if the different IP address ranges never need to communicate with
each other [at least not without going through other requipment.]
Layer 3 is able to route IP address ranges together.

1000BASE-T is a standard for 1000 megabits per second over unshielded
twisted pair cables ("category 5") which you may already have installed.

1000BASE-SX is a standard for 1000 megabits per second over fibre optic
cable, usually multimode cable, for relatively short runs (220 meters
is the limit that springs to mind.) It can go further than 1000BASE-T
(100 meter maximum), but not as far as -LH or -LX or other longer distance
versions [which usually require single-mode fibre.]


:- at least 5 nodes will act as data source
:- one node acts as data destination
:- all nodes are equipped with 1Gb nic's
:- all data source nodes can send data to the destination node simultaniously
:- the aggragate data rates from the source nodes will not exceed 50MByte/sec

All of those specs are performance specs, and ignore all the issues
that managed/unmanaged, Layer 2/3/multilayer, -T vs -SX have to address.

What we need you to tell us is about your needs in terms of:
- reliability
- technical support
- flexibility
- routing
- non-IP traffic
- distances between nodes
- redundancy and resiliancy
- other features that are important to you, such as VLAN, 802.1x,
MAC-level security

The specs you have outlined could be met by a $US150 8-port gigabit
switch -- but I wouldn't deploy said switch in any production environment!
--
Positrons can be described as electrons traveling backwards in time.
Certainly many Usenet arguments about the past become clearer when they
are re-interpreted as uncertainty about the future.
-- Walter Roberson
Anonymous
June 17, 2004 10:08:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Friso Brugmans <friso@idontwantsp.am> wrote:
> I am a little bit dazzled by all the different types of switches around: managed, unmanaged, layer2, layer3, 1000BASE-T, 1000BASE-SX.
> Could anybody give me an advise on what switch to use in the following system:
>
> - at least 5 nodes will act as data source
> - one node acts as data destination
> - all nodes are equipped with 1Gb nic's
> - all data source nodes can send data to the destination node simultaniously
> - the aggragate data rates from the source nodes will not exceed 50MByte/sec

What is the burst rate expected from one node?

A typical PC with normal PCI bus cannot push more than about
30 MByte/s across a PCI 32/33 gigabit card.

Your head end (receiver) will need to be a more advanced
machine with PCI 64 or 66. And have very fast disks.

This is light duty for a gigabit switch. It's much harder
when the data travels as a web rather than as a tree.

-- Robert
!