Settle this debate

[Tsaico]

On a larger network, say over a campus, you have two proposals for a network. One is with 125 computers spread out over 10 non-mananged switches. They are just uplinked to one another, no cascading, non-managed. Then you have the other, identical network, but with managed switches. I say it makes a huge difference in both performance and control. A junior tech here maintains that the only loss is control, but as far as stability and performance, they are identical.

He is full of crap isn't he? As I know it, truely managed switches can control collisions, manage subnets better, and also cache names for even faster resolution. So not just control issues affect the ROI on a managed switch. Back me up someone!

 

[spidey07]

completely full of crap.

A "real" switch will have all kinds of features for resiliency and fast convergence in case of a failure. Specifically with spanning-tree and the ability to tune it. Not to mention layer3 switching/routing (which is used extensively in campus network design)

then there is the Quality of Service issue. managed switches generally have QoS mechanisms to mark/classify packets and treat them accordingly.

Now performance wise? they would probably perform the same given the same design...but then again with QoS the mananaged one would perform better and maintain consistent performance for voice/video/data.

there there are all the security features of a managed switch - access lists, preventing rogue DHCP servers, dynamic ARP inspection to prevent people from pretending to be the gateway, 802.1x authentication to actually authenticate a node before it can communicate.

the list just goes on and on and on.

He is full of crap isn't he? As I know it, truely managed switches can control collisions, manage subnets better, and also cache names for even faster resolution. So not just control issues affect the ROI on a managed switch. Back me up someone!

to specifically address these questions.
1) modern switced networks never have collisions because every link is full-duplex. there are no collisions with full-duplex.
2) managing the subnet is just the routing/layer3 switching
3) I've never heard of a switch caching names, that isn't something a switch would do.
4) As far as return on investment - one problem on the unmanaged switch network will justify managed switches.

your buddy is smoking crack