Good switches to go for...

[talksr]

Hi, I work in a Primary school in London, which currently has a selection some old and run down 100mbps switches (non managed) and some allied telesys managed not so run down switches. I want to replace the older ones with some new managed switches.

 

I had my eye on two,

 

HP Procurve 2610-48 port

and HP Procurve 2610 -24port

 

But was supprised to read that the induvidual ports on these only support 100mbs.

 

Can anyone else recomend any switches for the same sort of price which support 1000mbps? Or do you think the two I have mentioned will do run a primary network nicely for the next 5 or so years?

We currently have no 1000mbps switches, we have a windows server 2008 system and windows 7 clients all for admin and a rm cc4 network with around 80 laptops and 30 desktop pcs mainly windows 7, but some windows xp.

 

Thanks

[K.C.Leblanc]

There are some versions of the ProCurve 2500 which do gigabit.

 

EDIT: 2510G-24 & 2510G-48 are the ones you're looking for.

 

There's also the 1810-24G. However these don't use the management interface as the rest of the procurve range and can't be used with ProCurve manager.

Edited September 24, 2010 by K.C.Leblanc

[SYNACK]

We use the 2510g-48s in a couple of places and they seem to do the job well apart from their requirement for hp branded fiber sfp modules

[K.C.Leblanc]

apart from their requirement for hp branded fiber (sic) sfp modules

 

That's a requirement on pretty much all procurve kit though.

[laserblazer]

Procurve have a lifetime warrant. We had one go down last month. It was over three years old. An engineer came in and replaced it FOC, which was great because the cab is in a dreadful for access. Only trouble, he didn't reconnect it properly and I had to hang from my toenails anyway!

[zag]

We use Netgear GS724T gigabit switches. They are rock solid and have SFP modules as well.

 

Best thing is they look awesome

 

http://www.topproduct.nl/img/575509/33970a-500-600-max-max/netgear-gs724t-300.jpg

[glennda]

Again I would vote Procurve - no complaints about them

[Cools]

i use GS748TP for net gear never had a problem there gig with 2 SFPs looks like zag pic above. you need deep wall cabs for them .. but they are poe to and are able to run cisco kit (like phones) just select the option from the web interface.. there not much more then the GS724T.. i have 5 of them running fine for 2 years and they come with a life time warranty like all blue box netgear kit..

 

it has this stupid add on that checks how long your cable runs are....

 

check the specs..

 

im a HP (Highly priced) Fan to for server and wks and netgear for networking..

[featured_spectre]

3com baseline 2028 smartswitch does the job nicely for us. supports 1GB, sfp modules provided seperately. Nice management console.

 

CP-Ltd supplied all of ours

[3s-gtech]

HP Procurve for all our replacement switches here, though we have some ancient D-Links which continue to give excellent service. Only gigabit backbone, no gigabit to desktop, but very happy with performance and reliability (kiss of death!)

[pritchardavid]

another procurve vote here

 

all our switches are procurve

 

 

make sure when you buy on you get a managed one or you done get the web interface of cli I believe

 

 

The managed one are generally the models with the 'g' at the end

[CyberNerd]

HP/3com 4500's for edge switches

Are branded HP now

Support for 3Com® Switch 4500 Family Overview Support and Registration

Use 4500G's or 4800G's for near-edge switches and a couple of 5500G's at the core and you will be fine.

It's not worth getting gigabit desktops until you have 10 gigabit backbone. The gigabit desktops will just overload the backbone (and if they don't - you don't need them anyway)

The 4800G's and the 5500G's will support 10Gb/s modules.

[SYNACK]

It's not worth getting gigabit desktops until you have 10 gigabit backbone. The gigabit desktops will just overload the backbone (and if they don't - you don't need them anyway)

 

Rubbish, you can team multiple 1GBit links for the backbone and each 1GBit workstation is not using all of the bandwidth all of the time. Even if you have 10 machines hitting it at absolute full throttle (practical impossibility with standard usage) on an agreagated 2GB link then that is 200Mbit which is much better than 100Mbit. You do not need 10GBit backbone links to experience a very noticable speedup from 1GBit to the edge.

[CyberNerd]

Rubbish, you can team multiple 1GBit links for the backbone and each 1GBit workstation is not using all of the bandwidth all of the time. Even if you have 10 machines hitting it at absolute full throttle (practical impossibility with standard usage) on an agreagated 2GB link then that is 200Mbit which is much better than 100Mbit. You do not need 10GBit backbone links to experience a very noticable speedup from 1GBit to the edge.

 

depends on how many machines you have on the uplink really. 10 and you will probably be ok. We have nearer 50 or 100 machines on some of our 2GB uplinks. it would be ludicrous for us to give them all 1GB/s if more than a few tried to use the available bandwidth then no-one else gets a look-in. Better to limit all clients. Historically we used to have one IT suite linked on a 1GB/s uplink!, they were only 100Mb/s desktops but we needed to limit them to 10Mb/s just so they could all save at once (large photoshop files) , as soon as tcp windowing came in on the 100Mb/s link everything slowed down to a crawl - it was faster using 10mb/s than 100mb/s in this instance.

[DMcCoy]

depends on how many machines you have on the uplink really. 10 and you will probably be ok. We have nearer 50 or 100 machines on some of our 2GB uplinks. it would be ludicrous for us to give them all 1GB/s if more than a few tried to use the available bandwidth then no-one else gets a look-in. Better to limit all clients. Historically we used to have one IT suite linked on a 1GB/s uplink!, they were only 100Mb/s desktops but we needed to limit them to 10Mb/s just so they could all save at once (large photoshop files) , as soon as tcp windowing came in on the 100Mb/s link everything slowed down to a crawl - it was faster using 10mb/s than 100mb/s in this instance.

 

Nearly all our machines are provided with 1Gb to desktop, a few smaller areas are left, but not many. Multicasting with WDS means I can actually use them all at once too. Uplink contention has never been an issue.

[SYNACK]

It does depend on the number of clients and the usage patterns along with any traffic shaping that you do on the links. We run around 40 machines off a 2GB trunk but only about 22 of these hit it simultaniously at any one time and we do still notice a large speed increase over the 100mbit limited stations.

 

Besides buying 100mbit switches now would be like buying ISA network cards which are already outdated and have absolutly no futureproofing at all. It has got to be better to spend that little bit extra up front and be ready rather than do a complete reinvestment buying totally new switches in a couple of years. If you really need to you can limit the ports in the switches configuration initially to drop the load then just change the config in the future when more backbone bandwidth is made avalible.

 

Edit: Agree with DRMcCoy makes WDS distribution really fast, we are all gig to the edge and can push down a full Windows 7/Office 2010/Encarta 2007/etc. fat image in about 6 minutes to a gig machine as opposed to 25-30 for a 100mbit one.

Edited September 24, 2010 by SYNACK

[CyberNerd]

It does depend on the number of clients and the usage patterns along with any traffic shaping that you do on the links. We run around 40 machines off a 2GB trunk but only about 22 of these hit it simultaniously at any one time and we do still notice a large speed increase over the 100mbit limited stations.

 

Think along the lines of the congestion along the backbone - when the core is congested the packets will need to be re-transmitted, and the rate at which they are retransmitted is slowed down, this slows the entire network speed. It's just not good network design - you may find that its faster with a few clients but when the network is under a lot of load (from other applications like voip, cctv) the network won't be nearly as stable as if when the distribution is 'fairer' amongst the clients. I would prefer to have a stable network under high load, at the expense of some faster clients - it maybe that you just don't see that high load compared to your equipment, so don't notice any future problems.

 

Besides buying 100mbit switches now would be like buying ISA network cards which are already outdated and have absolutly no futureproofing at all. It has got to be better to spend that little bit extra up front and be ready rather than do a complete reinvestment buying totally new switches in a couple of years. If you really need to you can limit the ports in the switches configuration initially to drop the load then just change the config in the future when more backbone bandwidth is made avalible.

 

I agree, but the best way of future proofing is by adding a 10Gig backbone. Limiting the ports is a good option. When it comes to financing it though, good quality managed switches (I'm thinking 4500G's here) are rather expensive. If your limiting to 100Mb/s then will you be able to afford 10Gb/s core switches in the projected lifetime of the edge switches? (and 10GB/s server NIC's etc) if not then it may be false economy.

Edited September 24, 2010 by CyberNerd
sp

[CyberNerd]

 

Edit: Agree with DRMcCoy makes WDS distribution really fast, we are all gig to the edge and can push down a full Windows 7/Office 2010/Encarta 2007/etc. fat image in about 6 minutes to a gig machine as opposed to 25-30 for a 100mbit one.

 

ok - I get the anecdotal evidence, but whats the scientific justification for putting 40 x1GB/s machines on a 2GB/s uplink. I'm not seeing it at all. Why does anyone bother with 10GB/s core switches at all?

[SYNACK]

Think along the lines of the congestion along the backbone - when the core is congested the packets will need to be re-transmitted, and the rate at which they are retransmitted is slowed down, this slows the entire network speed. It's just not good network design

I am well aware of TCP/IPs methods of handling traffic conditions and again it depends on the load that they are under. How is it good network design to limit your clients 99% of the time by underutilizing your hardware to avoid the possible slowdown 1% of the time. Also your VOIP and CCTV should be VLANed off and planned for anyway as a set addition to your network traffic which can be prioritized on the trunks if required.

 

I agree, but the best way of future proofing is by adding a 10Gig backbone. Limiting the ports is a good option. When it comes to financing it though, good quality managed switches (I'm thinking 4500G's here) are rather expensive. If your limiting to 100Mb/s then will you be able to afford 10Gb/s core switches in the projected lifetime of the edge switches? (and 10GB/s server NIC's etc) if not then it may be false economy.

 

How is it the best form of futureprooging to start with 10Gig links if you can only afford 100mbit switches because of it. The most scaliable way is to have a reasonable amount of fibre between catchment areas to start with to that could support 10Gig. You can start with agregating 2 or more comparitivly cheap 1gig fibres giving you a reasonable chunk of bandwidth and move up to 10gig as required as long as the switch supports it. It is also cheaper to add a dual port gig NIC to the server to up its bandwidth so that the destination has the throughput to cope.

 

To reitterate 10Gig is an answer but it is not the only correct answer as there are other ways to make bandwidth avalible and dependable with aggregation and with traffic shaping/prioritisation.

[SYNACK]

ok - I get the anecdotal evidence, but whats the scientific justification for putting 40 x1GB/s machines on a 2GB/s uplink. I'm not seeing it at all. Why does anyone bother with 10GB/s core switches at all?

 

This is a set case where all the machines can benifit to the full extent of their hardware. As to the math, not all machines are going to use all of the link at once, usually they hit 30-60% at full rate where as the backbone links can hit 100. This is instantly 3 - 6 machines going at absolute full steam to saturate the link. The next bit is that not all machines will be hitting it at exactly the same time and as it is at 1gig they can usually service their request and get out of the way quicker.

 

The next bit that makes it worthwhile is the bursting speed, during general usage the bandwidth required is very low meaning that when one station does need something it can get it that much quicker.

 

I am not saying that 10Gig is a waste of time or not a valid and good solution only that when that kind of budget simply does not exist you can still get a good benifit from using 1gig to the edge without spending the massive amounts needed to up everything to 10Gig in the core.

 

Would I like to have teamed 10gig links to each of the catchment areas, hell yes!! could we afford to without spending the next 10 years budget, no. Does this mean that we should not use the other avalible technologies to get the best speed out of our machines, no.

[CyberNerd]

I am well aware of TCP/IPs methods of handling traffic conditions and again it depends on the load that they are under. How is it good network design to limit your clients 99% of the time by underutilizing your hardware to avoid the possible slowdown 1% of the time. Also your VOIP and CCTV should be VLANed off and planned for anyway as a set addition to your network traffic which can be prioritized on the trunks if required.

 

 

I don't think it will matter if they are in separate VLAN's - if the switch is under too much load on the truck, then the VLAN's will suffer as well. Yes QOS on those VLANS will help enormously, but only to the detriment of the desktop clients. I personally think that designing a stable network - where things are limited "99% of the time" is better than something that is designed to fail some of the time. difference of opinion I guess.

 

How is it the best form of futureprooging to start with 10Gig links if you can only afford 100mbit switches because of it. The most scaliable way is to have a reasonable amount of fibre between catchment areas to start with to that could support 10Gig. You can start with agregating 2 or more comparitivly cheap 1gig fibres giving you a reasonable chunk of bandwidth and move up to 10gig as required as long as the switch supports it. It is also cheaper to add a dual port gig NIC to the server to up its bandwidth so that the destination has the throughput to cope.

.

 

Again. I think it's better to design the core before the clients. I'd go for (and do) trunked links (46GB/s between core switches, 8GB/s from core to blades, 2GB/s to edge switches, 1GB/s to wireless AP's and 100Mb/s to desktops). I know that it won't fall over if there is massive usage or some unforseen issue (effecting our thin clients with jitter etc). It just seems the wrong way around to do desktops first - knowing that the entire infrastructure could suffer if there are problems.

 

To reitterate 10Gig is an answer but it is not the only correct answer as there are other ways to make bandwidth avalible and dependable with aggregation and with traffic shaping/prioritisation.

 

limiting the desktops to 100MB/s (suiting your core) is a method of traffic prioritisation, giving the fairest share of the core to the greatest number of clients.

 

This is a set case where all the machines can benifit to the full extent of their hardware. As to the math, not all machines are going to use all of the link at once, usually they hit 30-60% at full rate where as the backbone links can hit 100. This is instantly 3 - 6 machines going at absolute full steam to saturate the link.

 

70% usage of an uplink is generally considered saturated, anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree. I need to go and do something else now. thanks

[SYNACK]

is better than something that is designed to fail some of the time.

 

anyway we are going to have to agree to disagree. I need to go and do something else now. thanks

 

Not fail, just suffer a slow down of non-prioritised traffic. Building a network with 100% throughput avalible to all stations all the time is nice in theory but seems a bit like building London bridge so that it can support the entire population at one time just in case they all deside to pile on there for some reason. If every client in every catchment area is using 100% of its bandwidth then you probably have bigger problems than your network slowing down. A higher speed backbone link would be nice but for us this way makes the best use of limited resources.

 

I do take your point though and agree that we disagree and most probaby will continue to do so.

[CyberNerd]

You stated earlier that 3-6 machines will saturate the a 2Gb/s uplink - this intern saturates the 2Gb/s link onto the server. so basically a handfull of machines in one area is going to cause slowdown/retransmission problems for everyone else, esp if there is latency dependant citrix/rdp/streaming traffic, which you then need to counteract this by creating complicated QoS rules putting more load on switches, and slowing the network traffic even further as it is non-prioritised. I think you put the cart before the horse. Get the infrastructe inplace before the clients.

[nicholab]

Some Cisco 2960-S have the option of 10Gbit they also stack which is great. They work great with our new Cisco phones.

[SYNACK]

You stated earlier that 3-6 machines will saturate the a 2Gb/s uplink - this intern saturates the 2Gb/s link onto the server. so basically a handfull of machines in one area is going to cause slowdown/retransmission problems for everyone else, esp if there is latency dependant citrix/rdp/streaming traffic, which you then need to counteract this by creating complicated QoS rules putting more load on switches, and slowing the network traffic even further as it is non-prioritised. I think you put the cart before the horse. Get the infrastructe inplace before the clients.

 

At maximum download rates which almost never happen, priorotising citrix and other realtime traffic is not to difficult with the right gear and that load is cpu rather than uplink load. I a not suggesting that having a solid foundation is not a good thing but your assertions about the required loading capacity of the networks are over the top in many deployments.

 

I also imagine that you need some clients so putting infrastrucure like you suggest in would make for a several year network buildout before you could afford any machines just incase you wanted each and every station to run a full noise up and down bandwidth test all at one time. Seriously how many client pcs do you have in each catchment area, what is the backhaul link and what are they being used for that maxes them continuously.