Network Switch Help!

[Starz26]

Ok, I have a friend who bought a house with a wired ethernet and a rack mount station. He currently has two old hubs from circa 1996 (funny the manual is a .txt file and talks about using a modem to call the ibm bbs)...

I want to put in two new switches but do not want to spend a lot of money...

Basically the setup is:

1. DSL internet WAN
2. 2 switches running the LAN connected to the WAN via the DSL in #1

Since the bandwidth of the internet is limited, I am not to worried about that, but I do want to ensure that the LAN has enough bandwidth to connect say multiple DVR with HD and up to say 5 computers streaming data....


Anyone have any suggestions as to equipment? The 2 switches need to be stackable or connectable....

I found this and was curious if it would work out well...

http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/SR224?id=jTRMYGGI&mv_pc=147

thanks in advance

 

[theribdoctor]

Ok, I have a friend who bought a house with a wired ethernet and a rack mount station. He currently has two old hubs from circa 1996 (funny the manual is a .txt file and talks about using a modem to call the ibm bbs)...

I want to put in two new switches but do not want to spend a lot of money...

Basically the setup is:

1. DSL internet WAN
2. 2 switches running the LAN connected to the WAN via the DSL in #1

Since the bandwidth of the internet is limited, I am not to worried about that, but I do want to ensure that the LAN has enough bandwidth to connect say multiple DVR with HD and up to say 5 computers streaming data....


Anyone have any suggestions as to equipment? The 2 switches need to be stackable or connectable....

I found this and was curious if it would work out well...

http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/SR224?id=jTRMYGGI&mv_pc=147

thanks in advance

how many connections do you honestly need? how many pc's laptops, dvr's?

for the most part you can get away with a regular n router with a gigabit switch...and you'll be happier than that...the 57 looks nice, but I think you'll be missing wireless...

 

[Starz26]

how many connections do you honestly need? how many pc's laptops, dvr's?

for the most part you can get away with a regular n router with a gigabit switch...and you'll be happier than that...the 57 looks nice, but I think you'll be missing wireless...

I just hooked up a wireless N router to the existing hub in bridge mode so he has wireless when needed....He has right around 30 outlets currently......Right now looking to make them all live...

 

[theribdoctor]

I just hooked up a wireless N router to the existing hub in bridge mode so he has wireless when needed....He has right around 30 outlets currently......Right now looking to make them all live...

it seems excessive...but to each their own, I'd hook up a wireless N router, and get a 24 or 48 port unmanaged gigabit switch.

the one you posted is 10/100 not 10/100/1000...but that should suffice.

 

[Starz26]

it seems excessive...but to each their own, I'd hook up a wireless N router, and get a 24 or 48 port unmanaged gigabit switch.

the one you posted is 10/100 not 10/100/1000...but that should suffice.

So would I have to hook up the router between the dsl modem and the switch?? the wireless part at the switch is useless.

Also, do you have a unmanaged gigabit 48 port switch you would recommend?

Right now the dsl modem is plugged into the uplink port of the old IBM HUB and the wireless router is plugged into one of the wired ports upstairs. It works but just want to make sure it will work that way with a switch...

 

[theribdoctor]

So would I have to hook up the router between the dsl modem and the switch?? the wireless part at the switch is useless.

Also, do you have a unmanaged gigabit 48 port switch you would recommend?

Right now the dsl modem is plugged into the uplink port of the old IBM HUB and the wireless router is plugged into one of the wired ports upstairs. It works but just want to make sure it will work that way with a switch...

I'd go from the dsl modem to the router, to the switch...why is the wireless part useless? don't you want wireless capabilities? No I don't have an unmanaged 48 port that I'd recommend...because they are pricey...

yes it should work the same way...a switch is a much better idea.
something like

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=73

 

[theribdoctor]

or you can stack several of these...

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=494

 

[theribdoctor]

actually, since wireless is useless, get a wired router, and then a switch or 2 for each individual room...

so in the rack, the dsl will be hooked to the wired router, then nic cables to each room, and a switch in each room can feed whatever you throw at it...expandable and stackable as you need.

noone needs 30 ports in a house...I'm a computer guy and i don't.

easiest would be to get wireless to the computers and wired or wireless ethernet bridges for any dvr.

jmho

 

[Starz26]

The wireless will not work where the rack is at.

The entire house is wired so he would like to make all the ports live.

i may go the stackable route.

Does there have to be a router between the dsl modem and the switch? The DSL modem has a functioning DHCP built in.

I know it is a little overkill but this is what he would like....He would like to use wireless with the laptops and wired with other media / desktops...

Seems the gigaswitches are much more expensive. what advantages does the gigaswitches provide over a regular 10/100? I am thinking that the 10/100 will work well for basic used and transferring streaming data throughout or am I wrong...

 

[andy]

Its excessive but he has the drops. He might as well activate them all at once so he doesn't have to keep track and revisit the issue.

The advantage of using a 10/100/1000 (Gigabit) switch is that you can move large amounts of data across a network faster than if you were to use a 10/100 switch. But keep in mind that the transfer rate between two points on a network is really only as fast as the slowest point. In order for both points to take full advantage of a 10/100/1000 LAN, they'll both need 10/100/1000 NICs. The 10/100/1000 switch will still support a 10/100 NIC but the point with the 10/100 NIC won't have the potential for higher transfer rates as the point that has the 10/100/1000 NIC.

Write speeds of HDs also come into play if you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of things.

Since the bandwidth of the internet is limited, I am not to worried about that, but I do want to ensure that the LAN has enough bandwidth to connect say multiple DVR with HD and up to say 5 computers streaming data....

A Gigabit switch should be sufficient to handle the above.

so in the rack, the dsl will be hooked to the wired router, then nic cables to each room, and a switch in each room can feed whatever you throw at it...expandable and stackable as you need.

If the house is already wired for ethernet then I assume all the copper leads back to the rack. Install the single switch if cost is not a factor. There's no need for multiple devices if a single device can do the job. The only scenarios in which you'll need the smaller switches is if cost is an issue and/or you don't have enough drops in a room to support your devices.

Here are a couple offers on Newegg.com for Netgear solutions. It looks like they're bundling them with offers for free PS3s, cameras, and shipping.

Hope this helps.

 

[themaindude]

Wouldn't the switch be limited by the infrastructure. I cannot see an existing installation being able to carry gigabit. cat5e is designed for 10/100. I guess take a look. If installation was done in the past 5 years maybe gigabit. If you are looking for wireless you could always put in a couple of gateways plugged in the wall in different parts of the house. I have used routers with wireless in the past and just had the wireless router get its ip from master router.

I actually did a very similiar installation about 5 years ago. I used a couple of hp 48 port switches. It worked out well.

 

[Chase]

If the modem hands out DHCP then that means it is performing the function of a Router and doing NAT translation so you would not need to buy a router unless he wants to do special things between the inside and outside world (Mapping ports thru and such). So it should work fine.

If the wireing in the building is not Cat6 or special Cat5e then going with the gigabit switch(s) is a waste of money because the copper in the walls won't be able to provide the thruput for gigabit speeds. Gigabit speeds are only really useful in a server enviroment where the amount of data transfers are quite huge.

If he wants wireless and the signal from the rack wont reach where he will have wireless then you can put a remote access point up in the roof closer to where the wireless cleints will be. You can also use what they call a POE injecter to power the access point so that you don't have to have a power outlet near it, everything is feed off the one ethernet cable.

I

The wireless will not work where the rack is at.

The entire house is wired so he would like to make all the ports live.

i may go the stackable route.

Does there have to be a router between the dsl modem and the switch? The DSL modem has a functioning DHCP built in.

I know it is a little overkill but this is what he would like....He would like to use wireless with the laptops and wired with other media / desktops...

Seems the gigaswitches are much more expensive. what advantages does the gigaswitches provide over a regular 10/100? I am thinking that the 10/100 will work well for basic used and transferring streaming data throughout or am I wrong...

 

[andy]

You can run Gigabit over Cat5 or Cat5e. Cat5 will bottleneck the transmission but Cat5e should allow for Gigabit throughput. So yeah, they're right. If the house is wired with Cat5, no sense in buying Gigabit anything.

 

[Chase]

Depends on the Cat5e.. alot of the Cat5e out there hits it's max thruput at 350 mb/s instead of the full 1000 mb/s. So you have to be careful when purchasing Cat5e to make sure that it is actually speed tested and rated at 1000 mb/s and fully supports gigabit speeds.

You can run Gigabit over Cat5 or Cat5e. Cat5 will bottleneck the transmission but Cat5e should allow for Gigabit throughput. So yeah, they're right. If the house is wired with Cat5, no sense in buying Gigabit anything.

 

[theribdoctor]

Depends on the Cat5e.. alot of the Cat5e out there hits it's max thruput at 350 mb/s instead of the full 1000 mb/s. So you have to be careful when purchasing Cat5e to make sure that it is actually speed tested and rated at 1000 mb/s and fully supports gigabit speeds.

originally I wasn't thinking that the cabling would be a bottleneck, but the fact that it has old hubs...we can assume it's just Cat5, so running gigabit would be useless. a good 24 or 48 port unmanaged switch would be optimal.

 

[Fox]

Guys, I do network design for a living. Cat 5 wire will run Gb speeds IF it was properly installed AND terminated in accordance with EIA/TIA standards AND the runs are much shorter than the maximum 100 meters AND good quality Cat 5 panels AND outlets were used. I doubt wiring distances are much more than 25 - 50 meters in this case. We have no problems with 1 Gb throughput, assuming good quality switching and NICs. Do it right the first time and go with 10/100/1000 switching to cover your bases.

If your DSL modem has a DHCP server and performs NAT then you do not need a router unless, as Chase notes, you have special routing needs. Dump the old IBM hub and patch all of the outlets into an inexpensive Netgear, unmanaged switch, add the Ethernet connection to the DSL modem and enjoy. We use a lot of Netgears on large installations because they are cheap, last a long time and if they fail they go in the trash and we pop in a new one off the shelf. DLink and Linksys are fine products as well. I only favor Netgear because of their reliability and cost based upon my own experiences.

 

[Starz26]

Ok, so my next question...

Say I buy the two switches mentioned in the first post...since they are not stackable, how do I make it so they both have internet connectivity? The DSL Modem only has one out. Does this mean I need to buy a router.....

From what I was reading you cannot just run a patch cable from one unmanaged switch to the next unless they are stackable and with the need to expand I know there has to be a way to use both switches on a single internet connection.......

Thanks for all the help so far!

 

[Chase]

Sure you can daisy chain switch's. just go from Cable Modem into port 1 on switch 1, then come out of say port 24 on the first switch and put that into port 1 on the second switch.

So between 2 24 port switchs you would have 45 open ports to use.

Any switch can be daisy chained.

Ok, so my next question...

Say I buy the two switches mentioned in the first post...since they are not stackable, how do I make it so they both have internet connectivity? The DSL Modem only has one out. Does this mean I need to buy a router.....

From what I was reading you cannot just run a patch cable from one unmanaged switch to the next unless they are stackable and with the need to expand I know there has to be a way to use both switches on a single internet connection.......

Thanks for all the help so far!

 

[Fox]

Sure you can daisy chain switch's. just go from Cable Modem into port 1 on switch 1, then come out of say port 24 on the first switch and put that into port 1 on the second switch.

So between 2 24 port switches you would have 45 open ports to use.

Any switch can be daisy chained.

Yep. Just be aware that some switches used to require a cross-over cable (pairs 1,3 and 2,6, IIRC) for daisy chains. I have not used any like that for a long time. Cross-over cables can be purchased off the shelf so it is no big deal.

ETA: Stackable typically refers to a single management interface for the stack and does not in any way limit the ability to daisy chain.

 

[Starz26]

Sweet, thanks guys....I made a crossover cable trying to connect his ibm hub to the netgear en524 hub and it did not work....but then plugging the dsl router into the netgear and the using a patch cable connecting my laptop to the same netgear hub and I was not able to access the internet either...so maybe the hub was bad....

If I daisy chain the two switches, am I limiting the bandwith of the second switch since it is only using one port of the first switch?? If so, will it be noticeable? or do the two switches allow the full bandwidth across both switches..

I think I will end up with the two cisco switches as he only has cat5 and cat5e cable on the network