RANT: Netgear FSM L3 switches --> JUNK

[p0lar]

Just a quick rant that I will never, ever, ever agree to even look at, diagnose or integrate one of these devices again. They're garbage -- rubbish, I say!

Horrible interface, terribly naming convention for common protocols, and L3 access security on vlan interfaces is a kludge and not well thought out at all with some nasty limitations. From now on, when a potential client asks me "Can you make this work?" and I say 'Sure, but it'll take 8 hours instead of 30 minutes with a Cisco' -- I mean it, and that almost includes an IOS upgrade, damn it.

/vent

ARGH.

 

[Agamar]

I only use Netgear for Layer-2 switches (If ever). I just installed an all Dell network using PowerConnect 6248's and was really impressed, though. the OS on the system was nearly identical to Cisco, and it also had a nice GUI front end for those that like them. I am getting great performance out of them. Of course, the old switches were HP 4000M's, so there wasn't much to compare to. That series of switch was REALLY outdated.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: Agamar
I only use Netgear for Layer-2 switches (If ever). I just installed an all Dell network using PowerConnect 6248's and was really impressed, though. the OS on the system was nearly identical to Cisco, and it also had a nice GUI front end for those that like them. I am getting great performance out of them. Of course, the old switches were HP 4000M's, so there wasn't much to compare to. That series of switch was REALLY outdated.

Well, the main problem was that I got called in on this one mid-stroke; otherwise, for their application and budget, it would have been a pair of Catalyst 3550s, maybe 3750s if the budget was permissive.

 

[jlazzaro]

hah, i love customers who put so much pressure on performance, avaliability, scalability and in the end wind up cheaping out on good, quality equipment because Cisco (or any other major vendor for that matter) "costs too much". ill be sure not to touch those netgears with a 10-foot pole...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
hah, i love customers who put so much pressure on performance, avaliability, scalability and in the end wind up cheaping out on good, quality equipment because Cisco (or any other major vendor for that matter) "costs too much". ill be sure not to touch those netgears with a 10-foot pole...

And I'll point out time and time again that cisco isn't the most expensive solution. Any capable switch from the big 3 (cisco, foundry, extreme) costs the same.

oh, and it sounds like p0lar has a configuration problem. So it's not the network's fault. Blame the guy working on it.

 

[cmetz]

p0lar, I'll raise you: Netgear anything is pretty much junk. Didn't used to be that way, but when they got spun out they got real cheap about everything. They occasionally put out a product that could be a contender, but poor software and horrible support cripple them.

All that said, an L3 switch is a device whose software matters and whose failure costs you (man-time to fix, lost productivity, etc.). Don't ever buy a cheapo L3 switch. It's one thing to buy a L2-only managed switch from SMC/Dell/Linksys/D-Link/Netgear/etc. Those are a relatively mature and well understand space of products, and these days almost all of the hard work is being done in the commodity chipset for you, and the vendor for the chipset even will provide you with a driver/SDK that does the hard parts of the software for you. L3 switches require much more hardware and software clues to get right. Do you really think you're going to get that from a low-cost vendor?

It's that whole total-cost-of-ownership thing. Spend the higher capex now and save lots of opex later.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: p0lar

Originally posted by: Agamar
I only use Netgear for Layer-2 switches (If ever). I just installed an all Dell network using PowerConnect 6248's and was really impressed, though. the OS on the system was nearly identical to Cisco, and it also had a nice GUI front end for those that like them. I am getting great performance out of them. Of course, the old switches were HP 4000M's, so there wasn't much to compare to. That series of switch was REALLY outdated.

Well, the main problem was that I got called in on this one mid-stroke; otherwise, for their application and budget, it would have been a pair of Catalyst 3550s, maybe 3750s if the budget was permissive.

Depending on his budget he could also check out the higher end HP switches. I haven't personally worked with any but the general opinion seems to be that they aren't half bad. Plus most of them come with gigabit and PoE for less than the Cisco offerings.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
hah, i love customers who put so much pressure on performance, avaliability, scalability and in the end wind up cheaping out on good, quality equipment because Cisco (or any other major vendor for that matter) "costs too much". ill be sure not to touch those netgears with a 10-foot pole...

And I'll point out time and time again that cisco isn't the most expensive solution. Any capable switch from the big 3 (cisco, foundry, extreme) costs the same.

oh, and it sounds like p0lar has a configuration problem. So it's not the network's fault. Blame the guy working on it.

100% -- it is a configuration issue, but the problem is that the amount of time it's going to take for me to acquiesce enough knowledge to debug the damn thing will look like a ridiculous consulting bill, which I just can't invoice in good conscience; thus, I am losing time that I could be billing elsewhere! (This is bad business for me, and also not good for my name.) I generally tell a customer after an initial review if I can service their needs as I do not invoice unless I deliver the results that we pre-define. This being the case, I also provide business-case analysis and cost-performance impact reviews at no charge for larger projects, especially for disparate voice implementations.

In that light, I put several hours into this when it should have taken a maximum of 2. I can't recover that time. Regardless, I'm certainly no stranger to what he needed to do, but I couldn't even get the damn things to speak correctly to Cisco devices, much less to each other. The way they have implemented the web-based (java) GUI, and the vaguely cisco-esque CLI is seriously bastardized. It's just not an intelligent configuration mechanism on either front, not because I'm not familiar with it, but because it leaves entirely too much room for interpretation on what they feel are proper terms for otherwise common concepts (dot1q, spanning tree, vlan-based routing and ACL construction (closely resembled Cisco without as much flexibility). In a testing or development environment, I might recommend these to a budget-conscientious IT manager who need only route between several relatively small subnets in a local topography. Anything more than this or anything that requires a certifiably secure implementation should look elsewhere.

I'm de-souring now, but still couldn't swallow that pill even for my own home use!

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
hah, i love customers who put so much pressure on performance, avaliability, scalability and in the end wind up cheaping out on good, quality equipment because Cisco (or any other major vendor for that matter) "costs too much". ill be sure not to touch those netgears with a 10-foot pole...

You know, it's really not that I think someone shouldn't, it's just that they need to understand that the configuration implementations aren't well thought-out. If you're willing to live with these nuances, and really do understand that you're not going to have the flexibility that Cisco, et al, offer, then that's fine -- they are a good value for the money, provided that you can configure them to behave as you wish, and can do it from remote without chopping your legs off. I personally would not configure active changes on these switches in-band, they were entirely too unpredictable.

I think they were on the order of $450 each, whereas a refurbished C3550 of roughly the same specifications is about twice that and can be had usually with 180 day guarantee and/or smartnetted thereafter if appropriated through proper channels.

As well, those Netgears are very very limited on their routing protocols (I only saw RIP and OSPF), where as the Cisco has extremely flexible PBR, limited BGP (only due to the RAM limitations of the C3550, best to take only a default route or filter a few prefixes), etc. I could ramble on about the differences for quite some time, but I think that illustrates the point that I'm making. $900 of my time, even when scheduled, can fly by extremely fast on a complicated performance debugging session, let alone what I charge when I am notified of emergency or high priority situations (including weekends/after-hours/holidays), which I strongly feel these switches could enable even a sound network administrator to get him/herself into.

P.S. and that's comparing the FSM series of Netgear switches to a Cisco that is how many years old now??! 5? 6 maybe? I can't recall the first time I got my hands in one of these, but even the one I have in my home lab has a manufactured stamp of 2003 on it, IIRC.

 

[spidey07]

well that brings up what cmetz was talking about.

It's a known fact that opex is the bulk of a network. capex is generally around 20%, 80% is opex.

So skimping on the price of gear is just plain stupid. because it really only drives UP the cost.

 

[nweaver]

My friend has a saying, "Pay me know, Pay me later. Doesn't matter to me" meaning, you can pay me a bit more to do it right the first time, or you can pay me to clean up the mess and do it right later.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of companies that still don't get this. Most are learning, it only takes one or two expensive mistakes.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: spidey07
well that brings up what cmetz was talking about.

It's a known fact that opex is the bulk of a network. capex is generally around 20%, 80% is opex.

So skimping on the price of gear is just plain stupid. because it really only drives UP the cost.

Can I get a AMEN!!!

Honestly, I don't mind charging more hours when it's warranted -- it's good for business; but I'll certainly get fewer calls from that customer should someone come behind me and see my recommendations that showed such skewed motive. That is just not customer-friendly practice. Considering my advertisement is word-of-mouth and referral only, this would do me a grand disservice in the long run. :S