Time to Switch to a Managed/Smart Switch?

[darkarn]

Hi, I am now using an unmanaged (and borrowed) 3com 5-port switch for my home lab of sorts and am considering getting a new switch considering my use case.

My home lab now consists of a Canon AIO printer, my main laptop/desktop replacement, an OpenMediaVault rig using an Intel dual NIC PCIe card, an ESXi host containing at least a few VMs (e.g. a Windows 7 VM) using an Intel single NIC PCIe card and another onboard Atheros NIC, and possibly another computer (not decided if ESXi or just Windows 7) with an onboard NIC. All are connected via Ethernet cables to the switch, and then the switch is connected to an Asus AC66U with another Ethernet cable.

I am trying to do some NIC bonding for the OpenMediaVault rig and the ESXi host, but I am not seeing any speed changes at all, which made me suspect that the switch needs to support this too, hence I am looking for a new switch. So here's what I need help in:

1. What exact features do I need to look out for? Is LADP or 802.11ad the right keyword to look into?
2. What else should I look out for?
3. Will 8 ports be enough for my use case or should I aim for 16 ports?
4. Is the TP-Link SG2008 ok, or should I go for a HP or even Cisco?

Thanks!

 

[sfx2000]

To be honest - you're probably ok with a $50 unmanaged 8 port GIGe switch - lots of decent vendors down in that price range, and they all perform well...

 

[System Error Message]

when it comes to bonding you need a semi managed switch. A lot of unmanaged switches dont use STP either. A lot of choices here for what you need just as long as you avoid d-link. any type of bonding will work.
HP and cisco offer much better switches but it really depends on your needs.
If you feel within a few years you'd be using more than 8 ports than get 16 ports.

 

[darkarn]

To be honest - you're probably ok with a $50 unmanaged 8 port GIGe switch - lots of decent vendors down in that price range, and they all perform well...

Unfortunately none of these unmanaged switches in the market support NIC bonding...

when it comes to bonding you need a semi managed switch. A lot of unmanaged switches dont use STP either. A lot of choices here for what you need just as long as you avoid d-link. any type of bonding will work.
HP and cisco offer much better switches but it really depends on your needs.
If you feel within a few years you'd be using more than 8 ports than get 16 ports.

Hmm. So it kinda boils down to how much I am willing to spend and how long-term this will be?

I may consider splitting into two separate switches if necessary; am I right to say that for the purpose of home networks, having an additional "hop" won't make much of a difference?

 

[L&LD]

I may consider splitting into two separate switches if necessary; am I right to say that for the purpose of home networks, having an additional "hop" won't make much of a difference?

Depending on how you group the devices among those switches, it may be even beneficial.

 

[darkarn]

Depending on how you group the devices among those switches, it may be even beneficial.

Currently, they talk to each other though (e.g. ESXi host transferring files to the OpenMediaVault rig, my laptop using files from either of them e.t.c.); makes more sense to group all of them together. But I suppose that if really need be, I will group the OpenMediaVault rig, my laptop and the printer into one switch (after connecting it to the router), and then daisy-chain it to another switch that has the new computer and ESXi host.

 

[System Error Message]

With lots of activity like file transfers it is better to use a central switch for better speed so they dont fight over a single link, thats assuming there is no centralised server that they all talk to and that they talk to each other.

 

[darkarn]

With lots of activity like file transfers it is better to use a central switch for better speed so they dont fight over a single link, thats assuming there is no centralised server that they all talk to and that they talk to each other.

Hmm, I see what you mean there (unless I connect the switches together using 2 ports instead of 1? Sounds counter-intuitive though).

Going to have to see whether I can get a managed 16 port switch at the right price, and at same time see how my usage will be like in the future (since some of these PCs are kinda old and I am strongly considering building one or even just buying a new laptop)

 

[Cloud200]

Link aggregation is not "faster" than 1 single NIC. It is broader.

Eg. If you transfer a file over FTP between two servers on a switch with LACP enabled and properly set up on the ports it will max out at the speed of a single link. If you have two clients connecting the aggregate speed will increase but no individual client will surpass the asked of a single link.

Consider looking at 10gbe if you want faster speed.

 

[darkarn]

I see, in other words link aggregation is more for serving more clients rather than serving clients faster?

(And where else can I read up more on this? The more I read, the more I don't seem to get it...)

 

[sfx2000]

I see, in other words link aggregation is more for serving more clients rather than serving clients faster?

(And where else can I read up more on this? The more I read, the more I don't seem to get it...)

Pretty much... there are benefits for capacity if you have multiple clients accessing the same source, but for a single client (even with 2 interfaces bound), it's not going to be 2x the speed... there's overhead involved...

 

[darkarn]

I see... Ok, maybe a good choice would be to just get the 8 port managed switch first since I will need more ports anyway but also keeping to my budget and giving me the option to do NIC bonding should the need arise?

 

[thiggins]

(And where else can I read up more on this? The more I read, the more I don't seem to get it...)

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30556-how-to-set-up-switch-link-aggregation

Read the IEEE paper linked at the end of the article, too.

 

[husu]

TP-Link Easy Smart Switches are reasonably priced ($35 on Amazon) with very nice feature at this price point.( It does support LAG) I picked up a 8 ports one few weeks ago for only $20 after rebate.

 

[darkarn]

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30556-how-to-set-up-switch-link-aggregation

Read the IEEE paper linked at the end of the article, too.

Thanks! I did check out that paper too, somewhat getting the idea on why link aggregation won't give me a speed boost in all use cases. I will still go ahead with that though to cover cases where more than one client is using the NAS (e.g. one client copying files from it while another is using it), but will also be mentally prepared if I don't see any speed boosts lol.

TP-Link Easy Smart Switches are reasonably priced ($35 on Amazon) with very nice feature at this price point.( It does support LAG) I picked up a 8 ports one few weeks ago for only $20 after rebate.

I prefer getting stuff from local retailers though. So far I am seeing only one shop selling the other TP-Link 8 port managed switch (TL-SG2008), may just hold off a bit cos an IT fair is coming and TP-Link's distributor will be setting up a booth to sell their stuff at better prices.

 

[roldogg]

I don't want you to think I'm hijacking your thread, but I did a search and came across this post because I'm in a similar situation. I'm considering a 16 port managed switch too, but I want to make sure I'll benefit from using one and won't be wasting money on something I'll never use.

I too thought setting up LAG would increase my throughput, but after reading this, I see that's not necessarily accurate.

I've been setting up a new home theater, not a dedicated one, just the components, speakers, etc in my living room. I have other devices hooked up as well, and the Netgear 8 port non-managed (stupid?) hub doesn't even have enough ports to hook everything up. I have some streaming devices (Roku 4, Nvidia Android TV, etc), but I also have a QNAP NAS that supports LAG and I want devices around the house to be able to stream music and video files from it and use it as a primary backup device.

Since the QNAP supports LAG and will be streaming across the network, I'll have devices that will stream 4K HDR content, but I'll have other devices that only stream audio, and others that will mostly use its network connection to updating firmware. Would a 16 port managed switch be beneficial in this case since I'll be able to setup the QNAP using LAG, other devices will only be streaming to one device (audio and/or video), and other devices won't use the network connection often, so I'll be able to setup the ports on the hub to use different priorities and make sure unnecessary data isn't Sent to devices that don't need it? Again, given the objective here, would a managed switch be utilized and be worth spending the extra money on?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[abailey]

I don't want you to think I'm hijacking your thread, but I did a search and came across this post because I'm in a similar situation. I'm considering a 16 port managed switch too, but I want to make sure I'll benefit from using one and won't be wasting money on something I'll never use.

I too thought setting up LAG would increase my throughput, but after reading this, I see that's not necessarily accurate.

I've been setting up a new home theater, not a dedicated one, just the components, speakers, etc in my living room. I have other devices hooked up as well, and the Netgear 8 port non-managed (stupid?) hub doesn't even have enough ports to hook everything up. I have some streaming devices (Roku 4, Nvidia Android TV, etc), but I also have a QNAP NAS that supports LAG and I want devices around the house to be able to stream music and video files from it and use it as a primary backup device.

Since the QNAP supports LAG and will be streaming across the network, I'll have devices that will stream 4K HDR content, but I'll have other devices that only stream audio, and others that will mostly use its network connection to updating firmware. Would a 16 port managed switch be beneficial in this case since I'll be able to setup the QNAP using LAG, other devices will only be streaming to one device (audio and/or video), and other devices won't use the network connection often, so I'll be able to setup the ports on the hub to use different priorities and make sure unnecessary data isn't Sent to devices that don't need it? Again, given the objective here, would a managed switch be utilized and be worth spending the extra money on?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

Because of the low cost of the introductory smart switches I almost always recommend them over a dumb switch as the cost is not much different. That being said, I don't think you need to run LAG on your NAS. It could possibly be helpful if you are backing up multiple PC's to it at the same time. As far as streaming from it you could stream about 40 4k HDR streams with a single Gigabit connection. A single gigabit should be plenty for all your streaming needs.

 

[roldogg]

Thanks. I do have 5 PCs that will be backing up content to it, but it's only personal files, pictures, etc. All my work related information is backed up in real time and stored Inn 4 different places in the US, but that's only because I have someone hosting everything. It makes my job easier.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk