Hey all, i was just wondering if im gunna run into any issues using 2x 8 port gigabit switches as opposed to a single 16-port one. hooking up 12 devices + 1 wireless access point, general use file sharing documents, internet etc i highly doubt anything heavy. now looking at some switches a netgear prosafe 16-port gigabit switch is £135.26 but a 8 port ZyXEL gigabit swtich is £30.59 was thinking of just daisey chaining the 2 Zxyel switches so i would have 15 free ports and a single shared gigabit port for all. the 2nd switch though would have to route all traffic through the shared port first. think this would cause any issue for normal use ?
man, been awhile since i took my ccna classes. wish i could be of some help as you're always quick to help others brother. i can't think of any issues off the top of my head. doubt it would be a problem under normal load, but what's normal to you?
It will work, but you will get some issues. Windows 7 and 2008 r2 do use spanning tree slot more than older os's and could cause you situations of loops as these are unconfigurable switches. You will get ALOT more junk/spitting traffic too so performance will drop. Do a couple of tracert and see how long it takes. However a router is a very good handler of traffic, esp if it is being used as the dhcp source, so the best solution for you is to bridge the switches with a router that is serving your dhcp. Do this and you'll not have any issues.
i already do this with an 8 port netgear smart switch, and a netgear standard 5 ports switch, no issues at all edit, i use a netgear fvs336g for my router, which is also the dhcp server.
forgive my noobness, but if he isn't looping the switches, just one connection from one switch to the other, would he get looping issues? i know that any additional device on one switch talking to another device on the other switch will decrease the throughput. i wasn't aware of looping issues due to unconfigurable switches because i thought an unconfigurable switch was just one that couldn't be managed ie configure speeds. educate me please ... i am curious how it works...
OK so here we have a simple nextwok, most switches will be aware of the endpoint they have attached. So if PC3 sends a pack to PC2 it will stay local to that switch and get received. No data will leave the switch. TICK If PC1 however, send a packet to PC2 or PC3, it will hit the switch, not be found and get sent to the highest metric gateway in the routing table, this is normally the router. Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.178.0.1 (my router) 172.178.0.101 (My PC) 10 Now remember as the router is only connected to Switch A this is all that it is aware of, so it will receive the packet from Switch A and then… send it back again CROSS. At this point a couple things can happen, one it can get sent back to PC1 and the packet will be either dropped or resent or it will hit the connecting port and be sent to the other switch at which point it will find PC2or PC3 (Yay it works!) or it will time out and drop.... Err no it doesnt! However depending on one, how well the switch handles the traffic, two the quantity of packets and three number of endpoints on each switch you could get timeouts on resends resulting in lost and dropped packets, which could give you issues, such as streaming HD video (stuttering is the most common example) This is then increased even futher when PC2 sends a packed to PC1, as it will also hit switch B, but then get sent to the default route on the table, the router! But this time the packet has to get sent down to switch A, at which point it could either hit PC1, or indeed hit the router and get sent back to switch A before it finds PC1. Now all of the above does not mean it "wont work" but you could get some strange goings on depending on: Number of devices attached Number of NICs on each switch from each PC Quantity of traffic on the network How well the switches handle the traffic. However if you have diagram B, ALL the traffic gets sent to the router unless it is local to the switch and the router is aware of the second switch, thus it knows where to send the packets when a non local request comes in. Really does make a difference to the performance. Try and see
Plug both switches into the router by their own cable - problem solved. You would have 7 free ports per switch. Edit: as in solution B above!
Also if you are looking for a better than your average and VERY underated switch set the Dell PowerConnect 27 series are great Gigabit and Web interface (trunking, vlans etc). 2708 2716 2724 Due to not many people knowing about how good these are, they sell cheap on eBay, check them out.
Bit noisy and power hungry for a home solution though aren't they? Edit: just realised a fundamental flaw in "solution B" in the diagram above. unless your router is gigabit, anything transferrred between the switches across the router will be at 100mb.
If you don't have a gb router that's your own fault, give yourself -10 points and got buy a d-link dir655. Also I'd still go solution B if it was 100mb. That netgears back plane is the same as the 100mb bp, gigabit is a bit of a joke at soho level.if you want 100mb+ sustained transfer low end enterprise is the only way forward. I admit some if the newer motherboards have semi decent onboards, but still don't come close to a intel PT single pcie card, which you can pick for around £40.00 Dell PC arent too hungry vs. There backplate thruput and fan is useless and I've removed it from both my 2724 so they are silent.
Completely Pointless. Buy the two switches. patch them together. job done. There is no reason what so ever in the home to break the Layer 2 network with Layer 3 IP routing.
It'll work just fine, most computers can't push more than 600mbps through a switch anyways. I have my network running two 5 port gigabit switches, with a gigabit router(DD-WRT), plus a seperate vlan for IPTV multicast, just becuase I can.
Agree. A 16 port switch, at that kind of level, isn't going to have a backplane of huge bandwidth anyway, probably 2gbps or 4gbps, in which case using a 1gbps uplink won't hurt. The only thing I'd suggest to the OP is if you regularly intend to copy large amounts (or stream) between two hosts, is to put them on the same switch if possible. No sense setting out to swamp the uplink when you can design around it. You'd only get a loop if you create a loop. They just need to be connected to each other with one cable. If it was a hub, you'd be right, as you're extending the collision domain. This is a switch however, so (at least when the MAC address table is full on the switch) only the correct data is sent on the correct port. Yep that'd work as long as the router has a built in switch of course, but if the router is 100mbps, you'd connect the gig switches to each other and then the router to just one of them! I just sold a pair of 2724s on here for £40 each, they're excellent little switches, and next to no noise at all. The Dell 34 series aren't much more and offer similar value. Barely audible over a normal PC IMHO Yeah just remember the more stuff you have connected the more contended that uplink is gonna be
lol thanks for all the replies guys clearly your all active after work when im not so sorry i couldnt respond. router will most likelt be a 100mb one and its not something i have control over. so look like ill be fine just opting for the 2 gigabit switches (cheaper than a lot of 100mb ones too) then using a single connection between the 2. i think this method will be better as most of the PCs will be able to communicate via 1Gbps rather than go with the router inbetween and instantly be limited to 100mb at all times. thanks for all the help i never doubted you guys for second
