Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

switch reccomendations

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 3:50:08 AM

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

Excuse me if this beyond the normal scope of this group.

But I'm after a 24 port 100baseT managed switch with some form of traffic
prioritisation, a couple of 1gig ports, SNMP and VLAN.

I don't usually buy this kind of stuff, I have a budget of £150 (240 ish
USD).

Is there a reccomended bit of kit that you guys would normally go for in
this sort of instance?

Thanks!

More about : switch reccomendations

Anonymous
October 25, 2004 7:30:25 AM

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

In article <1frdks1yru95f$.dlg@dont-listen.net>,
Adie <usenet@dont-listen.net> wrote:
:Excuse me if this beyond the normal scope of this group.

:But I'm after a 24 port 100baseT managed switch with some form of traffic
:p rioritisation, a couple of 1gig ports, SNMP and VLAN.

:I don't usually buy this kind of stuff, I have a budget of £150 (240 ish
:USD).

That's a pretty tight budget for a 24 port managed switch, especially
with the gig ports.


:Is there a reccomended bit of kit that you guys would normally go for in
:this sort of instance?

Perhaps you could buy a Baystack 470-24T off Ebay.

There are some very inexpensive 6 to 8 port gigabit unmanaged
switches out there, but I doubt they would have vlans, snmp,
or traffic prioritization, and 3 to 4 of them would still come out
as more than 150 pounds (at least new.) I would not trust any
important data to such switches without a thorough test with a
packet generator.
--
Look out, there are llamas!
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 11:58:37 AM

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

Walter Roberson wrote:
> Adie <usenet@dont-listen.net> wrote:

>:Is there a reccomended bit of kit that you guys would normally go for in
>:this sort of instance?
>
> Perhaps you could buy a Baystack 470-24T off Ebay.
>
> There are some very inexpensive 6 to 8 port gigabit unmanaged
> switches out there, but I doubt they would have vlans, snmp,
> or traffic prioritization, and 3 to 4 of them would still come out
> as more than 150 pounds (at least new.) I would not trust any
> important data to such switches without a thorough test with a
> packet generator.

How about Netgear? No good?

http://www.misco.co.uk/productinformation/45284/WW/Netg...

"NETGEAR's Smart Switch delivers built-in gigabit power at a very
attractive price. With the utility of 24 10/100 Mbps ports and 2 copper
Gigabit Ethernet ports, growing business networks can benefit from superior
performance and keep up with expanding network needs. This high-performance
switch connects to servers or a Gigabit-speed backbone for a non-stop
10/100/1000-enabled network that can quickly deliver large multimedia,
image, and video files. All 26 RJ-45 ports automatically negotiate to the
highest speed and support Auto Uplink technology to make the right link. In
addition, an intuitive, Web-browser interface offers simple switch
management, making it a snap to monitor switch performance, configure
ports, even set up port trunks, VLANs, and traffic prioritization. Shipped
ready for use straight out of the box, it delivers switching that's easy to
set up and use."

Too cheap to be true?
Related resources
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 12:11:37 PM

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

In article <1514dr6hhsqc9$.dlg@dont-listen.net>,
Adie <usenet@dont-listen.net> wrote:
|>:Is there a reccomended bit of kit that you guys would normally go for in
|>:this sort of instance?

|How about Netgear? No good?

|Too cheap to be true?

http://www.pcmag.co.uk/products/hardware/1150184

Netgear FS526T ... no SNMP management, which you had stated as
a requirement. Also, only has two levels of priority, but that might
be enough for you. The article says the switch has 8.8 Gb/s throughput,
which implies that it is line rate across all of the ports:
(24 x 100 + 2 x 1000) x 2 = 8800
However, the information given there does not establish that it is
able to handle 64 byte packets at full rate, only that it could
handle full-sized packets at full rate.


Generally speaking, I have seen a fair number of people expressing
concerns about Netgear support. I have seen people express concerns
about Netgear's return policy (check the details before buying!!).

But if you are such on a limited budget, then you can't be overly fussy
about support, or about bit error rates.
--
I've been working on a kernel
All the livelong night.
I've been working on a kernel
And it still won't work quite right. -- J. Benson & J. Doll
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 12:15:06 PM

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

In article <1514dr6hhsqc9$.dlg@dont-listen.net>,
Adie <usenet@dont-listen.net> wrote:
|>:Is there a reccomended bit of kit that you guys would normally go for in
|>:this sort of instance?

|How about Netgear? No good?

|Too cheap to be true?

http://www.pcmag.co.uk/products/hardware/1150184

Netgear FS526T ... no SNMP management, which you had stated as
a requirement. Also, only has two levels of priority, but that might
be enough for you. The article says the switch has 8.8 Gb/s throughput,
which implies that it is line rate across all of the ports:
(24 x 100 + 2 x 1000) x 2 = 8800
However, the information given there does not establish that it is
able to handle 64 byte packets at full rate, only that it could
handle full-sized packets at full rate.


Generally speaking, I have seen a fair number of people expressing
concerns about Netgear support. I have seen people express concerns
about Netgear's return policy (check the details before buying!!).

But if you are such on a limited budget, then you can't be overly fussy
about support, or about bit error rates.


--
Whose posting was this .signature Google'd from?
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:58:30 PM

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

Walter Roberson wrote:
> In article <1514dr6hhsqc9$.dlg@dont-listen.net>,
> Adie <usenet@dont-listen.net> wrote:
>|>:Is there a reccomended bit of kit that you guys would normally go for in
>|>:this sort of instance?
>
>|How about Netgear? No good?
>
>|Too cheap to be true?
>
> http://www.pcmag.co.uk/products/hardware/1150184
>
> Netgear FS526T ... no SNMP management, which you had stated as
> a requirement. Also, only has two levels of priority, but that might
> be enough for you. The article says the switch has 8.8 Gb/s throughput,
> which implies that it is line rate across all of the ports:
> (24 x 100 + 2 x 1000) x 2 = 8800
> However, the information given there does not establish that it is
> able to handle 64 byte packets at full rate, only that it could
> handle full-sized packets at full rate.
>
> Generally speaking, I have seen a fair number of people expressing
> concerns about Netgear support. I have seen people express concerns
> about Netgear's return policy (check the details before buying!!).
>
> But if you are such on a limited budget, then you can't be overly fussy
> about support, or about bit error rates.

Yes, youre right.But I think it will do the job, I just need basic QoS for
Voice and for an ERP app.

Regarding SNMP, I should be able to use a MIB browser... I hope.

Anyway, thanks for your input.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:58:31 PM

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

Adie wrote:

>
> Regarding SNMP, I should be able to use a MIB browser... I hope.
>
> Anyway, thanks for your input.

Mib browser won't do much good for a switch that does not run SNMP at
all. Zippo. Nilch. Nada.

The FS526T does not speak snmp at all. You need an FSM726 for that. But
that is out of your budget range.

BTW, many of these lower cost managed switches have been known to have
issues with multicast traffic.
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 5:47:27 PM

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

T. Sean Weintz wrote:
> Adie wrote:
>
>>
>> Regarding SNMP, I should be able to use a MIB browser... I hope.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for your input.
>
> Mib browser won't do much good for a switch that does not run SNMP at
> all. Zippo. Nilch. Nada.
>
> The FS526T does not speak snmp at all. You need an FSM726 for that. But
> that is out of your budget range.

Oh.... Bummer!

> BTW, many of these lower cost managed switches have been known to have
> issues with multicast traffic.

I imagine it will have issues, hopefully I won't be the one to come accross
them.
!