Recs for network switches please.

[Nick]

Hello.

I've had three switches die within the last month. All 8 port and am now out
of spares, so need to get a couple of backups. I think I read on this ng
that Netgear can be unreliable.
The switches that died were a Belkin and 2 cheap no-names. None more than
3yrs old.
Having said that I have 4 Netgear switches, 24 port, 16 and 2 x 8 that have
been running faultlessly since 2003. Note to self <don't tempt providence>.

Any suggestions please. Must be fanless or pretty close to silent. Would
prefer with built-in power supply rather than wallwart.

Many thanks, Nick.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:21:10 -0000
"Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I've had three switches die within the last month. All 8 port and am
> now out of spares, so need to get a couple of backups. I think I read
> on this ng that Netgear can be unreliable.
> The switches that died were a Belkin and 2 cheap no-names. None more
> than 3yrs old.
> Having said that I have 4 Netgear switches, 24 port, 16 and 2 x 8
> that have been running faultlessly since 2003. Note to self <don't
> tempt providence>.
>

I've not heard anything bad about the Netgear ProSafe range, which I
think comes with a lifetime warranty. This is the dumb 8-port gigabit
switch I'd buy http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271087875715
I wouldn't buy D-Link or Belkin.

[David WE Roberts]

"Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:akb4fg...@mid.individual.net...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003UWRYBI/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i00 for
a 16 port switch.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-8-Port-Gigabit-Switch-Rack-Mountable/dp/B001AUL7A6/ref=dp_return_2?ie=UTF8&n=340831031&s=computers
for an 8 port switch.

I have the 16 port but haven't used it in anger yet.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[Nick]

In message <akbaao...@mid.individual.net>, David WE Roberts
<nos...@btinternet.com> writes

>
>"Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:akb4fg...@mid.individual.net...
>> Hello.
>>
>> I've had three switches die within the last month. All 8 port and am
>>now out of spares, so need to get a couple of backups. I think I read
>>on this ng that Netgear can be unreliable.
>> The switches that died were a Belkin and 2 cheap no-names. None more
>>than 3yrs old.
>> Having said that I have 4 Netgear switches, 24 port, 16 and 2 x 8
>>that have been running faultlessly since 2003. Note to self <don't
>>tempt
>> providence>.
>>
>> Any suggestions please. Must be fanless or pretty close to silent.
>>Would prefer with built-in power supply rather than wallwart.
>>
>> Many thanks, Nick.
>
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003UWRYBI/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i00
>for a 16 port switch.
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-8-Port-Gigabit-Switch-Rack-Mountable/dp/
>B001AUL7A6/ref=dp_return_2?ie=UTF8&n=340831031&s=computers for an 8
>port switch.

According to Amazon I bought one of these in August 2011. It's run 24/7
ever since without problems. Silent and takes a standard mains cable.

>
>I have the 16 port but haven't used it in anger yet.
>

--

Nick (=----)

[Lee]

On 30/12/2012 15:21, Nick wrote:

> Any suggestions please. Must be fanless or pretty close to silent. Would
> prefer with built-in power supply rather than wallwart.

I'm using a cheap no-name 5 port gigabit switch, but have you checked
the PSUs? If they are external then IME they are a more likely failure
than the switch itself...

Of course sourcing a suitable PSU may be just as expensive as replacing
a cheap switch... ;)

[Daniel James]

In article <akb4fg...@mid.individual.net>, Nick wrote:
> I've had three switches die within the last month. All 8 port and
> am now out of spares, so need to get a couple of backups. I think
> I read on this ng that Netgear can be unreliable.
> The switches that died were a Belkin and 2 cheap no-names.

Netgear aren't the cheapest or best make in the world, but they're
streets ahead of Belkin. No-names can be brilliant, but are usually
dire.

I have a Netgear DS108 (a 10/100 "dual speed hub") and a GS108 gigabit
switch. Both 8-port. About 6 and 3 years old, respectively. No problems
from either (touch wood).

These are both fanless, both run from wall warts.

The dual speed hub is a bit of a crock -- it's essentially a 10mbps hub
and a 100 mbps hub glued together with a 2-port dual speed switch. I'm
told this was a bodge when switch chips were expensive to enable cheap
hubs to be built that could accept either speed on any socket.

I'd recommend the GS108, though.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:06:37 -0000, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
wrote:

>GS108 gigabit
>switch. Both 8-port. About 6 and 3 years old, respectively. No problems
>from either (touch wood).

My GS108 is exemplary. Mind you, I've only ever lost two bits of
network kit to sudden death at home or work, which is pretty damn
impressive now I think about it. (A no-name ADSL router and a Netgear
802.11n wifi box whose designation I forget).

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"It's people like that who make you realize how little you've accomplished.
It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age, he had
been dead for two years" - Tom Lehrer

[Michael Chare]

On 30/12/2012 15:21, Nick wrote:

My 8 port Netgear switch has been trouble free which is more than can be
said for the DGN2000 routers that I have been supplied with.

I also have a 16 port ZyXEL switch which has been OK

[AC]

Assuming no specific requirements, for wired, I buy the cheapest shit I
can get my tight fisted mits on, and happily scrap it when it dies.
Never noticed a performance issues, and they seem to last as long as
more expensive stuff. The money saving can mean you can have a spare, or
two, on the shelf. Wireless is where its worth worrying about quality.

As some one else said, its always worth checking the PSU's.

Dunno if it works, but I wonder if one has multiple identical (or same
power reqs) switches with cheapo plug in type PSU's, if its worth buying
one really decent PSU to power them all in one go? I realise that if
that blows all the switches go down, but if the usual point of failure
is the cheapo PSUs, then it might be worth it.

--
AC

[Daniel James]

In article <qt91e898to345dl58...@4ax.com>, Jaimie
Vandenbergh wrote:
> ... I've only ever lost two bits of network kit to sudden death at

> home or work, which is pretty damn impressive now I think about it.

Yes, we just expect this stuff to run 24/7 and never fail.

Apart from the wall wart for my original Draytek router blowing up
(which sounds more spectacular than it was, and a new (and rather
better designed PSU) was only a tenner, post free) the only network kit
I've had fail on me was a D-Link wossname that connects 10-base2 to 10
-baseT (what do you call those?) ... which was no trouble as I only had
one PC still using coax and that didn't need to be.

Mind you, I was beginning to suspect the old Draytek of not holding its
connection up as well as previously when I replaced it ... but it was
getting replaced with a newer one that handles ADSL2+ as soon as my
local exchange was upgraded anyway. That one is working perfectly ... I
just wish it understood (and firewalled) IPv6.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Lobster]

On 30/12/2012 15:21, Nick wrote:

As I'm also in the market for a new switch, could I hijack this with a
supplementary question?

I need to replace a 5-port with an 8-port, due to expansion of my home
network. The old switch is a 10/100 Mb one (as is my router), and my
system works fine with that.

However, my question is, if I spend the extra few quid upgrading to a 1
Gb switch, does that mean that any devices which are connected to each
other directly via that switch, and don't pass through the router,
operate (potentially) at 1 Gb, or will the router cause a bottleneck
over the entire network? Ie, would there be no point at all in buying a
Gb switch without upgrading the router as well?

Thanks
--
David

[David WE Roberts]

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zPzEs.572931$Xv.3...@fx07.am4...

All depends on your wiring - however I assume that all devices are hung off
the switch and one of the devices is the router which provides a route to
the outside world, with 100Mb/sec to the router then something much slower
to the outside world.

In this case any two devices with Gb capability talking directly with each
other internally via a Gb switch will work at Gb speeds.

Any device at a lower speed - 100 or 10 - will bring the effective speed
between the two devices down to match the slowest device.

Any device hung directly off your router will obviously be limited by the
maximum speed of the router interface.

A switch (as opposed to a hub) should isolate the traffic between your two
Gb devices from the rest of the network.
Old style hubs (long ago) just worked as a method of joining the wiring
together.
In this case, if every packet went down every link then you would have
problems driving a mixed network as the slower links would not be able to
cope with the higher speeds.
Not sure how that was dealt with!
[Long time since I did any serious network design.]
However any modern device should seperate out the traffic by learning which
devices are on which ports.
Pondering further, this should mean that with a good switch two pairs of
devices each working at Gb speeds should be able to use the full bandwidth
without competing.
I suspect that with an 8 port switch, keeping four seperate pairs of devices
flat out at 1Gb/sec would require quite a bit of muscle in the processing
department and quite a bit of buffer memory as well.

However to drag myself back to your original question, if you have two or
more devices which want to interwork on your local LAN (e.g media server and
client, NAS) then it is worth getting the Gb switch.
This also copes with future upgrades to newer and faster devices.

Cheers

Dave R

[Lobster]

Yep - or at least it will all be once I have an 8-port switch in place

> However to drag myself back to your original question, if you have two
> or more devices which want to interwork on your local LAN (e.g media
> server and client, NAS) then it is worth getting the Gb switch.
> This also copes with future upgrades to newer and faster devices.

Great, that's pretty much my scenario. I'm already doing media
streaming at the moment with my existing 100/10 system and it seems to
work OK, but given that there will definitely, be more rather than less
streaming going on here in the future, a Gb switch does seem the way
forward.

Thanks a lot for your explanation and sorry I can't help with your
original query! :)

--
David

[Lobster]

On 01/01/2013 13:08, Lobster wrote:
> On 01/01/2013 12:27, David WE Roberts wrote:
>>
>> "Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:zPzEs.572931$Xv.3...@fx07.am4...
>>> On 30/12/2012 15:21, Nick wrote:

>>>> Any suggestions please. Must be fanless or pretty close to silent.
>>>> Would
>>>> prefer with built-in power supply rather than wallwart.

>>> However, my question is, if I spend the extra few quid upgrading to a
>>> 1 Gb switch, does that mean that any devices which are connected to
>>> each other directly via that switch, and don't pass through the
>>> router, operate (potentially) at 1 Gb, or will the router cause a
>>> bottleneck over the entire network? Ie, would there be no point at
>>> all in buying a Gb switch without upgrading the router as well?

>> However to drag myself back to your original question, if you have two
>> or more devices which want to interwork on your local LAN (e.g media
>> server and client, NAS) then it is worth getting the Gb switch.
>> This also copes with future upgrades to newer and faster devices.
>
> Great, that's pretty much my scenario. I'm already doing media
> streaming at the moment with my existing 100/10 system and it seems to
> work OK, but given that there will definitely, be more rather than less
> streaming going on here in the future, a Gb switch does seem the way
> forward.
>
> Thanks a lot for your explanation and sorry I can't help with your
> original query! :)

...except you weren't the OP were you - duh! Anyway; am also monitoring
the replies to that with interest!

--
David

[David WE Roberts]

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:dhBEs.762575$9H4....@fx17.am4...

:-)

[Lobster]

On 01/01/2013 13:08, Lobster wrote:

> On 01/01/2013 12:27, David WE Roberts wrote:
>>
>> "Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:zPzEs.572931$Xv.3...@fx07.am4...
>>>

>>> I need to replace a 5-port with an 8-port, due to expansion of my home
>>> network. The old switch is a 10/100 Mb one (as is my router), and my
>>> system works fine with that.
>>>
>>> However, my question is, if I spend the extra few quid upgrading to a
>>> 1 Gb switch, does that mean that any devices which are connected to
>>> each other directly via that switch, and don't pass through the
>>> router, operate (potentially) at 1 Gb, or will the router cause a
>>> bottleneck over the entire network? Ie, would there be no point at
>>> all in buying a Gb switch without upgrading the router as well?
>>
>>
>> All depends on your wiring - however I assume that all devices are hung
>> off the switch and one of the devices is the router which provides a
>> route to the outside world, with 100Mb/sec to the router then something
>> much slower to the outside world.
>
> Yep - or at least it will all be once I have an 8-port switch in place
>
>> However to drag myself back to your original question, if you have two
>> or more devices which want to interwork on your local LAN (e.g media
>> server and client, NAS) then it is worth getting the Gb switch.
>> This also copes with future upgrades to newer and faster devices.
>
> Great, that's pretty much my scenario. I'm already doing media
> streaming at the moment with my existing 100/10 system and it seems to
> work OK, but given that there will definitely, be more rather than less
> streaming going on here in the future, a Gb switch does seem the way
> forward.

Amazon has just delivered the 8-port Gb T-link device you recommended :)
Quick follow-up query please...?

Is there any reason why I can't connect my modem output direct to the
switch, rather than via my wifi-router (ie, and then have the wifi
router hanging off the switch and serving just as a wifi access point?
I now have ample ports not to need the ones on the router.

Logic being that this would make it much easier to site the wifi aerial
somewhere much better than its current enforced location, which
undoubtedly affects its efficiency.

Thanks
--
David

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:07:54 +0000, Lobster
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Is there any reason why I can't connect my modem output direct to the
>switch, rather than via my wifi-router

Yes. Your access to the internet won't work if you do.

The 'router' part is essential - it does the translation between
Outside and Inside networks, converting between the one IP address you
have from your ISP (at the modem) to the various machines inside the
house, not to mention doing firewalling and whatnot.

You could get a seperate router, have that by the modem, and put the
current one inside the network as just a wifi access point - it'll
need reconfiguring to turn off some services if you do though.

Or buy a wifi access point, and put that wherever you want.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex."
-- Marvin the Martian

[Lobster]

On 04/01/2013 12:47, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:07:54 +0000, Lobster
> <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason why I can't connect my modem output direct to the
>> switch, rather than via my wifi-router
>
> Yes. Your access to the internet won't work if you do.
>
> The 'router' part is essential - it does the translation between
> Outside and Inside networks, converting between the one IP address you
> have from your ISP (at the modem) to the various machines inside the
> house, not to mention doing firewalling and whatnot.

Thanks - yes of course, that makes sense. Should have thought it through!

> You could get a seperate router, have that by the modem, and put the
> current one inside the network as just a wifi access point - it'll
> need reconfiguring to turn off some services if you do though.

Might do that. In fact my current modem is VirginMedia's 'superhub'
router although mine is currently configured in modem-only mode; I
suppose I could press that back into router service, although after what
they did to me last year I vowed never to do so [1]!

Why is it that wifi routers - or at least, cheapie ones - don't come
with detachable/extendable aerials available as standard? I'd happily
pay a few quid to be able to extend mine so I could position it
somewhere more sensible.

BTW I have also just treated myself to a set of 8 color-coded 0.5m patch
leads to make life a bit easier when tracing my wiring to the new
network switch: however, despite the flex being printed CAT5E with ISO
numbers and stuff, they are significantly thinner overall than other
patch cables I have (including 0.5m ones). Is this likely to cause me
problems?

--
David


[1] My entire network fell over - on a working day - and it took my
quite some time to work out what the hell was wrong... turned out that
VM had (a) 'upgraded' the router firmware overnight unannounced; and (b)
had decided to block users from changing the subnet from the default
192.168.0.*; since my network had all been on 192.168.1.* it didn't go
very well!

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:47:15 +0000, Lobster
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/01/2013 12:47, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>
>> You could get a seperate router, have that by the modem, and put the
>> current one inside the network as just a wifi access point - it'll
>> need reconfiguring to turn off some services if you do though.
>
>Might do that. In fact my current modem is VirginMedia's 'superhub'
>router although mine is currently configured in modem-only mode; I
>suppose I could press that back into router service, although after what
>they did to me last year I vowed never to do so [1]!

Wow. Arses.

Can't you flash it with non-Virgin firmware or something, or change a
password so they can't fiddle with it?

>Why is it that wifi routers - or at least, cheapie ones - don't come
>with detachable/extendable aerials available as standard? I'd happily
>pay a few quid to be able to extend mine so I could position it
>somewhere more sensible.

Two reasons - first, the aerials are really simple compact ones, so
the extension wire would actually break the poor buggers, and second
current wifi uses two to four aerials in an exact configuration
relative to each other, so the signal processor can do the right
things with the power outputs.

>BTW I have also just treated myself to a set of 8 color-coded 0.5m patch
>leads to make life a bit easier when tracing my wiring to the new
>network switch: however, despite the flex being printed CAT5E with ISO
>numbers and stuff, they are significantly thinner overall than other
>patch cables I have (including 0.5m ones). Is this likely to cause me
>problems?

As long as they have 8 wires and are cat5e, you should be fine.
Connect two GigE devices with one and make sure they negotiate GigE
speeds.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

[David WE Roberts]

"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:iBzFs.917880$EF4.5...@fx23.am4...

Ummm....connecting an Ethernet 'modem' directly to the hub exposes all your
PCs directly to t'Internet.
Although reading subsequent posts you say you are in 'modem only' mode
already so I am slightly puzzled, unless you currently only have one PC.
[Or pehaps not - see below.]

What I think happens - this is based on 'old style' when what you got from
Virgin was a Ethernet 'modem' and had to supply your own router.

With a single PC you can connect directly to the Ethernet 'modem' and use
DHCP on the PC to request an IP address from your ISP (Virgin).
However your PC is directly exposed to t'Internet and so you need to do some
careful firewalling to make sure your PC doesn't have its trousers round its
ankles including running Shields Up to check.

With multiple PCs, unless Virgin now supports multiple IP addresses via DHCP
from the ISP end, you need a NAT router to share the single IP address
between all your local devices.
This would be using the Superhub in router mode, or using it in modem mode
and connecting it directly to another router.

Regardless, having a NAT router adds another level of security.
NAT routers have all their ports closed by default so nobody calling into
your home can get a connection.
Windows PCs used to be overly friendly and welcome strangers with open arms.
So having a NAT router between your Internet connection and your internal
LAN is generally considered to be a GOOD THING(TM).

I may be several years out of date but I would always have a NAT router
between myself and t'Internet.
Granted that the Superhub is a POS in at least part of the software.
However I am using mine because it supports 802.n and my previous router
only supports 802.g.

Oh, and furhter ummm..... if I read your subsequent post correctly you have
the Superhub in 'modem only' mode and a seperate WiFi router.

So AFAICS you run an Ethernet cable from your 'modem' to your WiFi router
(putting your WiFi router wherever in the house suits you best including in
the loft) and then another Ethernet cable from the WiFi router to the new
switch if you want to site it away from the WIFi router.

This gives you the 'modem' by the cable termination, the WIFi router in the
best location for WiFi, and the switch in the best location for internal LAN
wiring.
Most importantly it puts all the Internet traffic through a NAT router.

Hope this helps.

Dave R

P.S. I suspect that you can extend the co-ax cable run from the wall socket
to the 'modem' by making up a longer cable to match the installed one, and
thus move your 'modem' anywhere in the house you like.
Certainly the previous Virgin cable installation we had when we moved in was
at the end of a long co-ax run in another part of the house.
The installers just disconnected it all and ran a new cable up to the small
bedroom/office.
It is just like cabling in a satellite system - use PF100 cable and screw
connectors.

[Johny B Good]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:58:46 +0000, Lee <cyber...@ukonline.net>
wrote:

Not really. ;-)

The practice of using analogue regulators inside economic SoHo
switches to stabilise the "nominal 6/9 voltage" feed from a typical
wall wart has long since passed into ancient history (along with the
external dial up modems associated with such technology).

What has been used, out of sheer necessity[1], during the preceding
decade or so is switching supply technology. This turns out to have
the rather beneficial effect of allowing almost any wallwart of a
sufficiently minimum power output[2] to be used as long as the output
voltage remains in the region of 5 to 16 volts (and, in a lot of
cases, right up to 25 volts - just check the voltage rating of the
input filter capacitor used by the switching regulator inside the
ethernet switch itself to be absolutely sure on this point).

[1] Initially, there was little to choose between the ancient and the
modern technologies on component costs. However, a modern switching
regulator could readily achieve conversion efficiencies in excess of
85% vastly reducing the waste heat compared to an analogue solution
which could quite easily be producing more waste heat than that of the
ethernet switching circuitry itself (especially true when a cheap
chinese unregulated wallwart was chosen as the primary power source).

Even when it cost more than an analogue regulator, the use of a
switching one could allow even cheaper and nastier wall warts to be
used and a smaller amount of metal or plastic for the case allowing
even greater reductions in manufacturing costs.

A typical 5 or 8 port SoHo Gbit ethernet switch only sucks around 4
to 6 watts from its wallwart supply (although the voltage / current
requirements marked on the switch itself will indicate a higher figure
than this to guarantee a suitable margin for error in the rating of
the wallwart supply - typically marked up as twice what the gadget
actually consumes).

As long as the VA rating (for DC this is wattage) of your chosen
replacement wall wart equals or exceeds the 'rating plate' figure of
the ethernet switch, its output voltage can be anywhere from 6 to 16
volts (and possibly right up to 25v if you've confirmed the voltage
rating of the input capacitor in the switch's psu circuit).

This can even work on switches that come supplied with an ac output
wall wart. This last possibility will only apply on kit that has the
fullwave rectifier bridge and smoothing capacitor relocated from the
wallwart to the psu circuitry within the case of the switch (usually
to permit a larger VA rated transformer to be used without making the
wall wart excessively bulky). In this case, a smaller more efficient
smpsu wall wart can be used as a replacement to the original ac output
wall wart[3] which can save the 2 or 3 watts typically dissipated by
the wall wart transformer itself[4].

[3] This is an exercise that I've successfully done about a decade
back with an 8 port fast ethernet switch.

[4] These days, most such chinese made transformer ac only output
wall warts typically waste 2 or 3 watts just by virtue of being
plugged into the wall socket alone. Long gone are the days when the
likes of the GPO / BT carefully specified the quality of such
transformers which typically only wasted quarter of a watt on no load.
--
Regards, J B Good

[Johny B Good]

It's worth keeping in mind that the built in 4 port ethernet switch
is gigabit. I agree that the management interface is rather clunky to
the point of annoyance ( e.g. Why the hell is there _such_ a short
timeout on the admin login activity monitor?).

I was going to put it into modem only mode and reconnect the Linksys
WRT54GS with the DD-WRT firmware upgrade that I'd previously used
until I realised I'd lose out on the Gbit switch and wireless n
features.