Cisco v HP switch

Curio

Curio

Curio

Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2004
Posts
8,040
Location
Brit in the USA
We're getting a couple of quotes for network upgrades. One company has quoted a Cisco SG300/52 and the other company a HP ProCurve 2910al-48G. The HP is 3x more than the Cisco. What are the differences between these two switches? I'm not really a server/network person, so it's all a bit confusing to me.

We're a small company (15 users) and use Terminal Services. Apparently our old switch is bottlenecking our network a bit.

Thanks!
 
The HP switch is an enterprise switch. SG300/52 is a small office one. If it was me I'd go with the HP, but for 15 users with (I assume) basic requirements, the Cisco would be fine. Only thing to be aware is that if you expanded it may not integrate with certain features. What was your old switch? If everything you do is over TS I doubt it would be a bottle neck at all

- GP
 
The HP offers POE, a quick google suggests maybe the Cisco isnt?

Edit, 15 users is that all?, if you already on gigabit then i doubt your network is the bottle neck!
 
Last edited:
LizardKing said:
The HP offers POE, a quick google suggests maybe the Cisco isnt?

Edit, 15 users is that all?, if you already on gigabits then i doubt your network is the bottle neck!
Click to expand...

The HP offers it, but that depends on model. The 2910al-48G is not PoE, the 2910al-48G-PoE+ is. As my post above, really we need to know what your current switch is

- GP
 
The equivalent Cisco to that HP is the Catalyst 2960 which will probably be a fair bit more expensive. The SG200 is a pretty rubbish bit of soho kit that doesnt belong with a Cisco badge on it (it's a Linksys really)

What has led you to the belief that your switch is causing a problem currently?
 
What about looking and the 2nd hand Cisco market? There are plenty of very reputable companies selling kit fully tested and with warranties.
 
For a site of 15 users, definitely the HP.

I'm not really sure you need to be spending quite so much, do you really need a fully managed or would a 'smart' switch do for your needs?
The HP-1910G series might do what you want.
 
Thanks guys. Our current switch is a Cisco 2960, which isn't gigabit. Although our applications aren't that demanding (couple of Sage apps do 95% of our work) we are being told our current switch can't handle the iSCSI load?

Very much appreciate the advice.
 
Curio said:
Thanks guys. Our current switch is a Cisco 2960, which isn't gigabit. Although our applications aren't that demanding (couple of Sage apps do 95% of our work) we are being told our current switch can't handle the iSCSI load?

Very much appreciate the advice.
Click to expand...

Your being led up the garden path I think. Your cisco 2960 is more than capable of handling the TS traffic.
 
You're running iSCSI over 100mb!? rather you than me!!

The 2960 is a great switch - I'd maybe get a smaller decent quality gb switch for your server/iscsi traffic and keep the 2960 for your desktop - terminal services wont even touch 10mb per desktop let alone 100 or 1gb
 
Curio said:
Thanks guys. Our current switch is a Cisco 2960, which isn't gigabit. Although our applications aren't that demanding (couple of Sage apps do 95% of our work) we are being told our current switch can't handle the iSCSI load?
Click to expand...
What else do you have attached to the switch?

Edit: Since we're assuming you've got iSCSI traffic on that switch - get two cheapish 24-port smart switches and use those for redundant paths between your storage and servers. Have the Server -> Client connections on a separate switch.
I get the impression the Sage stuff is hosted remotely though, so there isn't any iSCSI traffic anyway...
 
Last edited:
The HP is the better switch out of those two models.

I'd not get either though - if you only have 15 users, just get a second hand Cisco 3750.
 
Last edited:
Yamahahahahaha said:
What else do you have attached to the switch?

Edit: Since we're assuming you've got iSCSI traffic on that switch - get two cheapish 24-port smart switches and use those for redundant paths between your storage and servers. Have the Server -> Client connections on a separate switch.
I get the impression the Sage stuff is hosted remotely though, so there isn't any iSCSI traffic anyway...
Click to expand...

Why do you think Sage is hosted remotely?
 
I thought he meant his office users were using thin clients and terminal services with sage application running on the terminal server
 
OK, we do have a small Dell gigabit switch as well.

Here is what the assessment from one of the companies says...

"XXXXXXX currently has a Dell 2808 gig switch which is used for server connections. This switch is not setup for management, however it does have the capability. There is a single interconnect to the Cisco 2960 10/100 switch, this is where workstations, printers and router/firewall are connected and is also not setup for management. With the use of the NAS devices and virtualization it is recommended to replace both of these switches with a switch that can handle the high throughput of iSCSI"

The second company's assessment said much the same, only they recommended the Cisco gig switch instead of the HP.

We do experience the occasional bout of slow-down in RDS, although I realize that might not be purely down to the switch.

EDIT: Yes, post above this is correct.
 
Really if the Dell Gb switch is not dodgy it would be fine purely for the servers. Having a single 100Mb uplink also is fine to that switch if everybody is on TS. Note that I'm not saying that this setup is best practice or even optimal, but it seems the issue is being "resolved" by the companies trying to make you spend money and throw more powerful tin at it. If nothing is managed then get it managed, get something polling them via SNMP and get them to do some proper investigation, otherwise a residual problem can still be there and just be masked by more powerful hardware. For all we know it could be a simple buffer issue or duplex mismatch

- GP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom