ADSL router with > 4 ports

Graham. wrote:
>>> The commodity router chips are almost all certainly limited to 4 ports.
>> True, but there's nothing to stop a manufacturer building in a separate
>> switch chip. Some routers do this anyway (ie router chip with one LAN
>> port
>> + 5 port switch chip = router with 4 ethernet ports). It'd save money and
>> power over a separate switch (but probably not save money if you already
>> have the router).
>>
>> If you can find a switch chip with 8 ports you may find a router having
>> one
>> here:
>> http://wiki.openwrt.org/CompleteTableOfHardware
>>
>> Personally I'd just get a simple 8 port switch though
>>
>> Theo
>
> problem is, though most PCs are now equipped with Gigabit
> NICs I can't think of a single domestic grade router with a
> Gigabit switch.

There is little point if the ADSL itself is limited to less than 10Mbps.

I suspect they take the view that a domestic router is only to connect a
couple of PC's to the internet.

Windows these days comes with all LAN intercommunication off, by default
anyway. You are not expected to file share around the home.


If u are setting up a home LAN, then ou probably know enough to buy a
fast switch.


>
> Even the expensive Cisco routers I install at work only have 10/100
> ports.

You didn't buy the really expensive ones then ;-)

Again, the assumption is you don't ROUTE high speed local traffic, you
switch it.

With WAN links being very expensive above 100Mbps, if you have such,
chances are you have the money for a real brute of a Cisco.

I did set up a multimode fibre over a 5 mile pair of lines to bridge
10Mbos ethernet though..

On 24 Jan, 15:18, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net>
wrote:
> Vet Tech wrote:
> There are also three wireless APs dotted around for those "lying
> in the garden with a gin+tonic" moments...

Are the G&T's on a different subnet??

Alex Potter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:49:05 +0000, Graham. wrote:
>
> > problem is, though most PCs are now equipped with Gigabit NICs I can't
> > think of a single domestic grade router with a Gigabit switch.
> >
> > Even the expensive Cisco routers I install at work only have 10/100
> > ports.
>
> http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=530
>
Several of the Draytek Vigor range have Gigabit ports.

--
Chris Green

Ato_Zee wrote:
> On 3-Feb-2009, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>>> problem is, though most PCs are now equipped with Gigabit NICs
>
> Which is fine if they can process Gigabit I/O and gross overkill if
> thinking in terms of ADSL.
> 10/100 anywhere between switches and hubs on the backbone
> and that's a bottleneck.
> Some Sun workstations and mainframes might benefit from
> Gigabit but I have my doubts about PC's.

Well windows ones, possibly.

File access to the network server here is still perceptibly slower on
100Mbps than native to a local disk so I think gigabit is probably
optimal for a LAN, if the network layer can fully load it.

"The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Graham. wrote:
>>>> The commodity router chips are almost all certainly limited to 4 ports.
>>> True, but there's nothing to stop a manufacturer building in a separate
>>> switch chip. Some routers do this anyway (ie router chip with one LAN
>>> port
>>> + 5 port switch chip = router with 4 ethernet ports). It'd save money
>>> and
>>> power over a separate switch (but probably not save money if you already
>>> have the router).
>>>
>>> If you can find a switch chip with 8 ports you may find a router having
>>> one
>>> here:
>>> http://wiki.openwrt.org/CompleteTableOfHardware
>>>
>>> Personally I'd just get a simple 8 port switch though
>>>
>>> Theo
>>
>> problem is, though most PCs are now equipped with Gigabit
>> NICs I can't think of a single domestic grade router with a
>> Gigabit switch.
>
> There is little point if the ADSL itself is limited to less than 10Mbps.
>
> I suspect they take the view that a domestic router is only to connect a
> couple of PC's to the internet.
>
> Windows these days comes with all LAN intercommunication off, by default
> anyway. You are not expected to file share around the home.
>
>
> If u are setting up a home LAN, then ou probably know enough to buy a fast
> switch.
>
>
>>
>> Even the expensive Cisco routers I install at work only have 10/100
>> ports.
>
> You didn't buy the really expensive ones then ;-)

Well yes, the 1801 is bottom of the range as Cisco kit goes.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:07:09 GMT, "Ato_Zee" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>On 3-Feb-2009, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> > > problem is, though most PCs are now equipped with Gigabit NICs
>
>Which is fine if they can process Gigabit I/O and gross overkill if
>thinking in terms of ADSL.

most routers seem to use a chip to provide the set of LAN ports, - and
most of those can keep a GigE interface fairly busy.

so you can operate locally at a good fraction of 1000 Mbps.

More to the point the usual Q isnt "can it run 1000 Mbps", but "can it
handle more than 100 Mbps".....

>10/100 anywhere between switches and hubs on the backbone
>and that's a bottleneck.

which might just be why the OP asked for more than 4 GigE ports on the
router?

>Some Sun workstations and mainframes might benefit from
>Gigabit but I have my doubts about PC's.

a modern PC motherboard with internal PCI express should get within
shouting distance of full speed GigE in at least 1 direction - 300 to
500 Mbps total is doable.
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

Ato_Zee wrote:
>> My home network backups would definitely benefit from gigabit. Currently
>> they max my link out at about 80Mbps and big backup sets take a while.
>
> If you are backing up to hard drives that may be the bottleneck.

It might be, but it ain't.

Drives are faster than 100Mbps.

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> Kráftéé wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Ato_Zee wrote:
>>>>> My home network backups would definitely benefit from gigabit.
>>>>> Currently they max my link out at about 80Mbps and big backup sets
>>>>> take a while.
>>>> If you are backing up to hard drives that may be the bottleneck.
>>> It might be, but it ain't.
>>>
>>> Drives are faster than 100Mbps.
>>
>> Sigh...he didn't say they were, he implied it was the slower 10/100
>> network which was the bottleneck.
>
> I also read it that Ato_zee was implying that the hard disk would be the
> bottleneck.
Well there ya go.

We agree on the facts, not on the interpretation of ato-zees post.


Gigabit Ethernet good for LANS. Better than 100Mbps stuff. If you have
large intermachine traffic.

Ive got a 10Mbps interface on my printer..sure slows down postcript
transfers..