I've run out of ethernet ports

[TechMinerUK]

Hi everyone, after doing some recent reconfiguring of the network at home I've realised my trusty router has run out of ethernet ports. I was wondering which would be the best option for expansion as I could get a switch or would it be better to get a new router with more ethernet ports (The current one has 4 with a TP-Link router configured as a switch attached).

Any input on this is greatly appreciated as always

 

[Werewolf]

If you're happy with your current router I'd say go with a switch, they're cheap enough now that you can get an 8 port gigabit one from Netgear or the like for under £20, which is a lot cheaper than you'd get a new router for (and most routers only have 4 ports anyway unless you start to look at specialist and thus expensive ones).
I'd suggest looking at the number of devices/connections you have in use and allowing for some spare ports to spare you potentially having to buy another new switch in a couple of years.

I'm at the point where I've got a good router (with 4 ports), connected directly to 3 of our machines, then the forth port goes to a 16 port switch which feeds most of the rest of the house (although in one room there is another router as an access point and switch, and another connection leads to the garage where again an old router acts as a switch and access point).

 

[Craig321]

I do the same as above. Couple of 'main' machines directly into the router, then a switch which runs the rest of my stuff. Works perfectly.

Just make sure you get a gigabit switch so you have decent transfer speeds between machines.

 

[TechMinerUK]

If you're happy with your current router I'd say go with a switch, they're cheap enough now that you can get an 8 port gigabit one from Netgear or the like for under £20, which is a lot cheaper than you'd get a new router for (and most routers only have 4 ports anyway unless you start to look at specialist and thus expensive ones).
I'd suggest looking at the number of devices/connections you have in use and allowing for some spare ports to spare you potentially having to buy another new switch in a couple of years.
I'm at the point where I've got a good router (with 4 ports), connected directly to 3 of our machines, then the forth port goes to a 16 port switch which feeds most of the rest of the house (although in one room there is another router as an access point and switch, and another connection leads to the garage where again an old router acts as a switch and access point).

I do the same as above. Couple of 'main' machines directly into the router, then a switch which runs the rest of my stuff. Works perfectly.
Just make sure you get a gigabit switch so you have decent transfer speeds between machines.

Thank you for your advice, I'll check out the switches then

 

[bledd]

+1.

Just remember.. if you buy a 5 port switch and you currently have a 4 port router, you'll only be gaining 3x ports. Because the router and switch need to be connected via a cable too.

Just buy an 8 port gigabit switch

 

[K.C. Leblanc]

I do the same as above. Couple of 'main' machines directly into the router, then a switch which runs the rest of my stuff. Works perfectly.

Just make sure you get a gigabit switch so you have decent transfer speeds between machines.

Deffo gigabit, since the extra cost is buttons. If you're transfering a lot of stuff between machines or use a NAS then it might be better to plug them into the switch. Especially if your router is only 100mb/s.

 

[Werewolf]

Deffo gigabit, since the extra cost is buttons. If you're transfering a lot of stuff between machines or use a NAS then it might be better to plug them into the switch. Especially if your router is only 100mb/s.

Aye the price difference between 10/100 and 1000 is something like £3, with 8 port gigabit switches starting at around £15.

Buying 10/100 is throwing money away these days imo, as most devices with ethernet ports have gigabit ones now (I can't remember the last new PC I saw with 10/100, even the most budget motherboards have a gigabit nic).

+1.

Just remember.. if you buy a 5 port switch and you currently have a 4 port router, you'll only be gaining 3x ports. Because the router and switch need to be connected via a cable too.

Just buy an 8 port gigabit switch

+1

I'd forgotten that, it's one of the reasons I bought a 16 port switch rather than daisy chaining another 8 port one.

I think I've got 36 network ports in the house now (2x 8 port switches, 2x 4 port routers and a 16 port switch) with 8 ports in total in use for connecting them together.

 

[DragonQ]

Also remember you're introducing a 1 Gb/s bottleneck between your router and switch. In 99% of cases you won't notice but it might be prudent to think beforehand which devices to attach to the new switch and which devices to attach to the router. For example, if device A and device B are both going to be transferring files to and from device C at the same time, you ideally don't want device C attached to a different switch to A and B.

 

[TechMinerUK]

Aye the price difference between 10/100 and 1000 is something like £3, with 8 port gigabit switches starting at around £15.
Buying 10/100 is throwing money away these days imo, as most devices with ethernet ports have gigabit ones now (I can't remember the last new PC I saw with 10/100, even the most budget motherboards have a gigabit nic).
I'd forgotten that, it's one of the reasons I bought a 16 port switch rather than daisy chaining another 8 port one.
I think I've got 36 network ports in the house now (2x 8 port switches, 2x 4 port routers and a 16 port switch) with 8 ports in total in use for connecting them together.

To be honest I wouldn't even consider looking at anything that didn't have 1Gb/s ports as it's just not worth the hassle when transferring files over the network.

Also remember you're introducing a 1 Gb/s bottleneck between your router and switch. In 99% of cases you won't notice but it might be prudent to think beforehand which devices to attach to the new switch and which devices to attach to the router. For example, if device A and device B are both going to be transferring files to and from device C at the same time, you ideally don't want device C attached to a different switch to A and B.

This was the bit bugging me about the whole switch idea as for some things (Like transfering large files to the server) full or as close to gigabit is a must or I end up tearing my hair out waiting

Deffo gigabit, since the extra cost is buttons. If you're transfering a lot of stuff between machines or use a NAS then it might be better to plug them into the switch. Especially if your router is only 100mb/s.

Would this get arround the router as a bottle neck i.e only one gigabit connection from the switch to the router for internet so the switch can handle LAN connection for 1Gb/s between clients?

+1.
Just remember.. if you buy a 5 port switch and you currently have a 4 port router, you'll only be gaining 3x ports. Because the router and switch need to be connected via a cable too.
Just buy an 8 port gigabit switch

Might even have a look at more than 8 ports as with rewiring in the house I'm trying to get Cat5e/6 to as many rooms as I can

 

[Steveocee]

If you're looking at wiring up the house then save yourself some money long term and invest in a 24 port gigabit switch.

 

[TechMinerUK]

If you're looking at wiring up the house then save yourself some money long term and invest in a 24 port gigabit switch.

You're right, it will certainly save time setting up numerous switches and the issues that would entail. Better just to start on the right track with the right equipment

 

[Craig321]

That's if you have the space. 24-ports can be quite big.

 

[DragonQ]

If you're looking at wiring up the house then save yourself some money long term and invest in a 24 port gigabit switch.

I am about to network up my new house and will probably only get a 16 port switch (unless a 24 port switch is barely any more). I figure by the time I want more ports, I'll also want to upgrade to a 10 Gb/s switch anyway.

 

[K.C. Leblanc]

Would this get arround the router as a bottle neck i.e only one gigabit connection from the switch to the router for internet so the switch can handle LAN connection for 1Gb/s between clients?

Yup, if the two clients are on the same switch then any data going between them will be handled by the switch and shouldn't go near the router.

 

[TechMinerUK]

I am about to network up my new house and will probably only get a 16 port switch (unless a 24 port switch is barely any more). I figure by the time I want more ports, I'll also want to upgrade to a 10 Gb/s switch anyway.

I'll be going for whatever is decent and cheap (By the look of things that means used)

Yup, if the two clients are on the same switch then any data going between them will be handled by the switch and shouldn't go near the router.

Excellent, thats one issue I no longer need to worry about

That's if you have the space. 24-ports can be quite big.

Yep, space is definitely not an issue for where this is going to be fitted

 

[flowrider99]

Also remember you're introducing a 1 Gb/s bottleneck between your router and switch. In 99% of cases you won't notice but it might be prudent to think beforehand which devices to attach to the new switch and which devices to attach to the router. For example, if device A and device B are both going to be transferring files to and from device C at the same time, you ideally don't want device C attached to a different switch to A and B.

Thats not how Ethernet works. Only one device transmits at a time so the "bottleneck" is not the switch but the number of devices.

 

[DragonQ]

Well, let's assume devices A and B are on one switch, whilst device C and D are on another switch, with the switches connected via 1 Gb/s Ethernet. Device A cannot communicate with device C at maximum speed whilst device B also wants to communicate with device D. They'd get each 500 Mb/s on average. If all 4 devices were all on the same switch, that limitation shouldn't exist, unless the switch's internal implementation is particularly shoddy.

Basically it's best to keep devices that communicate often with each other on the same switch if you have a choice.

 

[Steveocee]

Well, let's assume devices A and B are on one switch, whilst device C and D are on another switch, with the switches connected via 1 Gb/s Ethernet. Device A cannot communicate with device C at maximum speed whilst device B also wants to communicate with device D. They'd get each 500 Mb/s on average. If all 4 devices were all on the same switch, that limitation shouldn't exist, unless the switch's internal implementation is particularly shoddy.

Basically it's best to keep devices that communicate often with each other on the same switch if you have a choice.

>What if device A wants data from device C and device D wants data from device B, then full duplex comes into play and both devices get Gb speeds.

>This is a home network and the chances of that occurring are relatively slim. If OP requires house and all cables are pulled to a central point then daisy-chaining would be kept to a minimum.

>I'm sat here in my "cave" with a 24 port next to me and as much plugged into it as I can find along with 3 additional aggregation ports and I'm using 15 ports total. If OP goes 24 port then the chances of this limitation hitting him are even slimmer.