Best Gbit Switch

Ch3m1c4L

Ch3m1c4L

Ch3m1c4L

Soldato
Joined
11 Oct 2007
Posts
3,257
Location
London, UK
Need to get another gigabit switch. Currently I have an Asus RT-N65U and some random netgear 5 port Gbit one.
Would like 4 downlink ports, so a 5 port, or a 4+1 port is perfect.
It will end up being the primary links for my server, and additional storage nodes as I require them, so it will likely have large sustained usage.
Anything in particular to aim for, or just get the asus one? Or just get the cheapest?

Will be sitting on a shelf.
 
Personally, I'd get a 16 or 24 port switch and put everything into that, run add a patch panel and cable the place up properly.

They're all much in the same tbh.

But you'll be limited to a gigabit total on the uplink. Whether this is an issue, only you can decide.
 
I find it funny that people scrabble to get cheap gigabit switching, giving little to no thought to actual PPS throughput.

Cheap desktop switches will most likely have such poor backplane performance I wouldn't want to be daisy chaining them through single uplinks.
 
For a single user, multi computer environment, they're fine imo.

But daisy chaining is indeed a big no-no if you're doing anything more than light browsing.
 
for my flat, which is rented, and has in the front room, 3 devices that are 100 base t, and one which is a 1000 (the HTPC). It makes sense to have a little switch there, since its only for streaming and gaming. throughput isn't exactly congested, and I bought it YEARS ago when there wasnt much option unless you spent hundreds.

In my room, the server and possible future storage nodes, which will only be accessed by the server, will then be on a single link back to the router, which is a pain, but other than running a lot of cables I do not see a way around it, or that it is worth the cost of doing anything properly (in wall/trunking etc), since its a rented space, and only the bedrooms are carpeted meaning I can't run them under the carpets either.

Main PC will be on its direct link to the router.

So, its not daisy chaining, since each switch will be on a link to the router.

I am specifically asking which switches is likely to have decent throughput rather than the crappy ones that cant manage it.

Do you have a better option that doesnt involve running at least 4 cables between two rooms, and doesn't cost more than a single switch, or if it does, gives performance on a scale that is worth the expenditure?
 
It is daisy chaining them.

Unless all devices go into one switch, you're daisy chaining them.

As said above, they're all the same in terms of the speed you'll see.
 
Surely daisy chaining switches would mean a switch, connected to a switch, connected to something?

Each switch is connected to the router. Only 1 switch has more than one device capable of above 100mbps, and on that switch, only one machine needs to connect back to anything not on its switch. I could do it with a quad network card in the server but they cost more don't they?

Right now, it's not even changing my network setup, just moving the router and modem, and putting the server on a switch, but I predict I will run out of space and build another nas which will be mapped to the server via iscsi. Server will then encode stuff and serve that media to the htpc/outside world.

I am open to other options but a larger multiport means lots of cables, and internal wiring costs a lot more, in a rented flat so I won't get to keep it :/
 
To use a quad port card in the server, you'll need a managed switch. That's for another thread.

Right now, if one device on one of your switches connected to your PC (both with gigabit), then the gigabit would be saturated because there's only one route between them.
 
surely that is fine then, since it will be storage nodes (at some point) talking to the server, which are all on one switch. that switch then connects to the router, so the server has a gbit link which nothing else is using, barring software updates to the storage boxes when I build them, unless it is transferring stuff to the storage boxes ofc.

The main pc has its own link to the router.

The other switch, which has a link to the router, has the HTPC, Xbox, wii and something else i can't remember on it. They are all on one TV, so will never be being used at the same time, and as such, the HTPC being the only Gbit device, effectively has its own link to the router.

So, the only point of contention I can see, would be if I used my main, or htpc, to access the storage boxes, while trying to access the server at the same time.
Or, if I was using the server to copy a load of stuff from one mapped drive to another, thus maxing out the network on its switch. But, that shouldn't affect the other devices connected to the router in any way...should it?

As far as the quadport on the server, I meant I would then be direct linking that to the storage boxes.

Obviously I want to get everything wired up properly, but I am unwilling to spend the money until its in my own house. I have also looked at getting 10Gbit but its prohibitively expensive for little benefit at the moment.

The only times I do really large file transfers are when re configuring my RAID arrays. The next largest will jsut be when videos transfer onto a storage box etc. Then the server runs plex, and steam. to enable media everywhere, and game streaming to my tablet when I am away from home.

So, with that in mind, can you answer the original question, of is there any real difference in the performance on consumer level gbit unmanaged switches.
Is the Asus one good, such as there routers? Or shall I get any old one that looks/fits fine and it'll be just as good?
 
If a 5 port is enough. But an 8. You will always kick yourself for not buying big enough.
Netgear gs stuff is fine for what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom