QoS

[mforcer]

I am seeking the forums advice on a new small network for my business. The details of the network connected equipment are

1 x Metro ethernet (6M/6M) internet connection
1 x QNAP 459
4 x Workstations with Gigabit ethernet
4 x Linksys SPA942 VoIP phones with 2-4 concurrent lines and hosted PBX (PoE capable).
1 x wireless access point (PoE capable)
1 x Network printer (10/100)

I am considering a Netgear FVS318G ProSafe® 8-port Gigabit VPN Firewall with the 4 workstations and NAS directly connected and a FS116P ProSafe® 16-port 10/100 Desktop Switch with 8-port PoE for the 4 PoE phones, PoE wireless access point and printer.

Metro Ehternet
- FVS318G
| - 4 x Workstations
| - 1 x NAS
| - FS116P
- | - 4 x VoIP Phones (PoE)
- | - 1 x wireless access point (PoE)
- | - 1 x networked printer

These switches are both passive cooling which would be nice in the open plan office (no network cabinet).
The issue I am unsure of is the QoS for the VoIP phones. Could this setup cause VoIP issues as the FS116P does not support QoS?

If I don't make use of the PoE, the following setup is possible:

Metro Ehternet
- FVS318G
| - 4 x VoIP Phones
| - 1 x wireless access point
| - GS108T
- | - 4 x Workstations
- | - 1 x NAS
- | - 1 x networked printer

Would this better seperate the internet and internet network traffic?

I have been looking at the Netgear product range simply because I have had great experience with their gear in the past.

Is there anything different or better I should be considering?

Thank you!

 

[thiggins]

You might want to look at another router. There are been multiple reports of reliability problems with the FVS318G. Check the Cisco RV042 or one of its siblings. Not the RVS4000, however.

You should use a smart / managed switch that supports VLANs to keep the VoIP and data traffic separate. Whether QoS support in the switch matters depends on your VoIP strategy. Separating the VoIP traffic on its own VLAN may do most of the trick. Then using priority-based QoS in the router should be able to handle prioritization over data traffic.

 

[mforcer]

Thank you for your comments.

I gave much consideration to your suggestion to use a smart switch but I realised that the smarter the switch, the smarter I would need to be with my network configuration or I would need to hire someone to setup my network for me. Neither of those options were appealing for me in my current situation.

I ended up with what I hope is a compromise being a Cisco SG 100-16 (aka SR2016T) switch which is an unmanaged switch that supports basic QoS and jumbo frames. Those features were likely the only things I would have made use of in a smart switch. I also realised that any possible speed benefit to my relatively tiny network didn't justify the additional expense or hassle of the smart switches.

Also appealing of this switch is its internal power supply which avoids additional items around my networking gear, and no fan and silent, passive cooling in my quiet working environment.

 

[thiggins]

Unmanaged switches will not perform any QoS functions, other than perhaps properly passing QoS tagged packets.

 

[mforcer]

Is anyone able to translate the below marketing? I am trying to learn

All switches include advanced Cisco traffic-handling features to keep your applications running at peak performance. Integrated QoS intelligence automatically prioritizes delay-sensitive services such as voice or video to improve your network's performance. Fast store-and-forward switching identifies damaged packets and prevents them from being passed on through the network. All of these features run automatically, with no management or configuration required.

Quality of Service (QoS)
Priority levels: 4 hardware queues
Scheduling: Priority queuing and weighted round-robin (WRR)
Class of service: 802.1p priority based

 

[thiggins]

That description does look like the switch has automatic QoS. But that's a new one on me. I don't know if that is a good idea, especially with no way to control or at least turn it off.

 

[mforcer]

I haven't been able to find any reviews or even announcements of these Cisco SG 100 (SR20xxT) switches. Crossing my fingers that I have made the right choice