differences in switches?

[cubby1223]

I'm trying to advice a company to switch up to gigabit network switches, and I'm a little confused on what to advise. The main switch is a 24-port, they range from $100 to $200 - do the $200 switches perform better, or are you just paying for the Netgear or Cisco brand name without any added benefit? Thanks.

 

[Mark R]

All switches basically perform the same at the most basic level. I've seen the cheapest garbage grade gigabit switch compared against a top-of-the-line all-singing-all-dancing switch from a big manufactuer costing $ks. No difference, at least for basic stuff.

The difference is quality of construction and features, and how well those features work.

For example, do you want management? How much management, etc.?

Once you start getting into VLANs, layer 3 stuff, etc. then differences can appear.

Cisco and the other manufacturers often have proprietary acceleration features when connecting multiple switches together in a big network. Connect 10 cisco switches together in a complex network, and you may find that the proprietary features mean the whole system works better than one that is fully "standards compliant".

If specifying an upgrade for a company network, I would always suggest a big name brand, and a business level device - e.g. a L2 managed switch. These business level devices come with support, and you will still be able to find them years later, so if an upgrade to the network is needed in 5 years time, you will be able to find an identical switch to expand the network, avoiding problems with compatibility, need for staff to configure an unfamiliar piece of equipment, etc.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

I'm trying to advice a company to switch up to gigabit network switches, and I'm a little confused on what to advise. The main switch is a 24-port, they range from $100 to $200 - do the $200 switches perform better, or are you just paying for the Netgear or Cisco brand name without any added benefit? Thanks.

The difference may not be in speed, but rather in reliability and manageability.

Most importantly, in a corporate environment a managed switch that allows manual setting of speed/duplex and up/down per port is very useful for troubleshooting and running some proprietary hardware.

In addition, features like VLAN support can reduce costs in the future and/or enable better security models if you go that way.

In addition, support for protocols like Spanning Tree allow larger networks to function without worrying about network loops and issues related to multiple switches being connected together.

 

[PliotronX]

The difference may not be in speed, but rather in reliability and manageability.

Most importantly, in a corporate environment a managed switch that allows manual setting of speed/duplex and up/down per port is very useful for troubleshooting and running some proprietary hardware.

In addition, features like VLAN support can reduce costs in the future and/or enable better security models if you go that way.

In addition, support for protocols like Spanning Tree allow larger networks to function without worrying about network loops and issues related to multiple switches being connected together.

+1 Cisco switches (at least those sporting the IOS) have neat features that hasten convergence so if you have redundant links between switches, you have a downtime that can't be seen on your watch whereas the standard downtime would be 30-50 seconds. That is for a decent sized network though and to take full advantage of of such features you'd need some Cisco training, they are far from "plug and play" hardware. More expensive switches also tend to have faster forwarding rates which means they will offer full throughput of all ports simultaneously. I have been impressed with Dell Powerconnect switches. All you may need is a TrendNet unmanaged switch. Their GreenNet switches consume so little power they don't need fans and are rock solid and best of all very inexpensive.

 

[cubby1223]

This is for a company of about 10 employees, I'm looking at the basic networking equipment, a Trendnet is ~$100 while Netgrear/Cisco is ~$200. I do not foresee a need for the advanced features any time soon.

Their machine at the far end of the shop pulls files off the file server at ~15mbps max, and there are 4 network switches between the two machines. There isn't an easy way to reduce the number of switches, because of the length each cable spans. The hope is the gigabit speed will outperform any congestion that is causing this slow link.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

This is for a company of about 10 employees, I'm looking at the basic networking equipment, a Trendnet is ~$100 while Netgrear/Cisco is ~$200. I do not foresee a need for the advanced features any time soon.

Their machine at the far end of the shop pulls files off the file server at ~15mbps max, and there are 4 network switches between the two machines. There isn't an easy way to reduce the number of switches, because of the length each cable spans. The hope is the gigabit speed will outperform any congestion that is causing this slow link.

The maximum length of GB Ethernet segments is 100m, just FYI.

If you're going near 500m (half a kilometer) using those 4 daisy-chained switches, then you should probably investigate using a fibre link rather than chaining 4 switches together, for performance and reliability reasons.

Depending on your switches, there may be some performance issues due to simply transiting 4 slow switches. Dropping $150 on a fibre link might do more than replacing the core switch.

When comparing unmanaged switches, you're buying reliability, warranty and, yes, to some extent, the name on the box (as it relates to perceived support and reliability).