network switch question...

Hi all,

I hope this is the right group to ask this - if not then please redirect
me...

I'm looking to upgrade my renderfarm network. I have 15+ machines
currently using old 3 hubs joined together to my fileserver. All on
100Mbit connections. What I think I need to do is to insert a gigabit
card in the server (rh9 linux) and use a 24 port switched hub.

I expect all new machines we'll be adding will have gigabit ethernet as
standard.

However, this is where I'm getting confused. Looking at what is
available is now confusing me. There seems to be a big price difference
between to my eyes - similar speced models:

- NetGear GS524T Gigabit Switch 24 x 1000Mbps ports ~ £ 650
- 3Com SuperStack 3 Switch 3824 1000 Mbps, 24 ports ~ £1300

Am I missing something here? Could any kind soul point me in the right
direction...

Thanks in advance,

Paul

paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> However, this is where I'm getting confused. Looking at what is
> available is now confusing me. There seems to be a big price difference
> between to my eyes - similar speced models:
>
> - NetGear GS524T Gigabit Switch 24 x 1000Mbps ports ~ ? 650

http://www.netgear.com/products/prod...odID=117&view=

"Unmanageable rack-mountable"

> - 3Com SuperStack 3 Switch 3824 1000 Mbps, 24 ports ~ ?1300

"Rack-Mountable Managed Gigabit Switching"

> Am I missing something here? Could any kind soul point me in the right
> direction...

The expensive is manageable. The price gap has always been very
significant between manageable and non-manageable active network
equipment.

--
Cameron Kerr
(E-Mail Removed) : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!

Hi Cameron,

Thanks for helping a newbie out. Would I be right in thinking that I
don't need a managed swith a simple <30 machine renderfarm network...?

The lo-end solution will still be many times fast than my present 100M hub?

Regards,

Paul



Cameron Kerr wrote:
> paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>However, this is where I'm getting confused. Looking at what is
>>available is now confusing me. There seems to be a big price difference
>>between to my eyes - similar speced models:
>>
>>- NetGear GS524T Gigabit Switch 24 x 1000Mbps ports ~ ? 650
>
>
> http://www.netgear.com/products/prod...odID=117&view=
>
> "Unmanageable rack-mountable"
>
>
>>- 3Com SuperStack 3 Switch 3824 1000 Mbps, 24 ports ~ ?1300
>
>
> "Rack-Mountable Managed Gigabit Switching"
>
>
>>Am I missing something here? Could any kind soul point me in the right
>>direction...
>
>
> The expensive is manageable. The price gap has always been very
> significant between manageable and non-manageable active network
> equipment.
>

In article <bvtgu8$okn$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Hi Cameron,
>
>Thanks for helping a newbie out. Would I be right in thinking that I
>don't need a managed swith a simple <30 machine renderfarm network...?
>
>The lo-end solution will still be many times fast than my present 100M hub?
>
>Regards,
>
>Paul
>

IMHO managed vs non-managed depends on how costly downtime (and your
time) is. If you need to solve a fault or performace problem ASAP I'd
go for a managed switch. It also gives you the flexibility to use a
sniffer on network traffic. It doesn't have to be fancy, I like a
built-into the switch that lets you see all sorts of statistics and
make settings from any browser.

>
>
>Cameron Kerr wrote:
>> paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>However, this is where I'm getting confused. Looking at what is
>>>available is now confusing me. There seems to be a big price difference
>>>between to my eyes - similar speced models:
>>>
>>>- NetGear GS524T Gigabit Switch 24 x 1000Mbps ports ~ ? 650
>>
>>
>> http://www.netgear.com/products/prod...odID=117&view=
>>
>> "Unmanageable rack-mountable"
>>
>>
>>>- 3Com SuperStack 3 Switch 3824 1000 Mbps, 24 ports ~ ?1300
>>
>>
>> "Rack-Mountable Managed Gigabit Switching"
>>
>>
>>>Am I missing something here? Could any kind soul point me in the right
>>>direction...
>>
>>
>> The expensive is manageable. The price gap has always been very
>> significant between manageable and non-manageable active network
>> equipment.
>>
>


--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <bvtgu8$okn$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Hi Cameron,
>>
>>Thanks for helping a newbie out. Would I be right in thinking that I
>>don't need a managed swith a simple <30 machine renderfarm network...?
>>
>>The lo-end solution will still be many times fast than my present 100M hub?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
>
> IMHO managed vs non-managed depends on how costly downtime (and your
> time) is. If you need to solve a fault or performace problem ASAP I'd
> go for a managed switch. It also gives you the flexibility to use a
> sniffer on network traffic. It doesn't have to be fancy, I like a
> built-into the switch that lets you see all sorts of statistics and
> make settings from any browser.
>

Ohh- that all sounds too complex for me. Network sniffers and the such.
I tempted to go for the unmanaged switch. I know my way around linux
pretty well - but am I complete networking novice. I think I should
keep it simple (and cheap) for starters...

Many thanks for all your help,

Regards,

Paul

PS - are all the 1000Mbit switches much of a muchness when you buy from
Netgeat, Linksys, 3com...? Or is one company considered much
better/worse than the others...???

In article <bvtolp$82k$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <bvtgu8$okn$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>>Thanks for helping a newbie out. Would I be right in thinking that I
>>>don't need a managed swith a simple <30 machine renderfarm network...?
>>>
>>>The lo-end solution will still be many times fast than my present 100M hub?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO managed vs non-managed depends on how costly downtime (and your
>> time) is. If you need to solve a fault or performace problem ASAP I'd
>> go for a managed switch. It also gives you the flexibility to use a
>> sniffer on network traffic. It doesn't have to be fancy, I like a
>> built-into the switch that lets you see all sorts of statistics and
>> make settings from any browser.
>>
>
>Ohh- that all sounds too complex for me. Network sniffers and the such.
> I tempted to go for the unmanaged switch. I know my way around linux
>pretty well - but am I complete networking novice. I think I should
>keep it simple (and cheap) for starters...
>
>Many thanks for all your help,



YOu don't _have to_ use a sniffer, but if you get an unmanaged hub
you'll never have the option.

The procurve switches I'm familiar with were really easy to manage.
When it boots it gets an IP address. From any desktop on your LAN you
browse to http:\\nn.nn.nn.nn (whatever IP # dhcp assigns it.) (For
extra credit you can figure out how to tell your dhcp server how to
always assign a static IP address to the switch, based on the MAC
address.)

The first time your company's ISP connection seems to die you'll be
able to see if one of your desktops has one of the blaster viruses
that swamps the uplink bandwidth in 60 seconds, instead of having to
unjack each desktop at the patch panel and wait and see if the problem
clears up. Last year I had a client with unmanaged switches catch a
virus on one of his desktops and it cost him a couple thousand in my
time, plus lots of distruption, to find the offending PC.









--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)

>>
>>Ohh- that all sounds too complex for me. Network sniffers and the such.
>> I tempted to go for the unmanaged switch. I know my way around linux
>>pretty well - but am I complete networking novice. I think I should
>>keep it simple (and cheap) for starters...
>>
>>Many thanks for all your help,
>
>
>
>
> YOu don't _have to_ use a sniffer, but if you get an unmanaged hub
> you'll never have the option.
>
> The procurve switches I'm familiar with were really easy to manage.
> When it boots it gets an IP address. From any desktop on your LAN you
> browse to http:\\nn.nn.nn.nn (whatever IP # dhcp assigns it.) (For
> extra credit you can figure out how to tell your dhcp server how to
> always assign a static IP address to the switch, based on the MAC
> address.)
>
> The first time your company's ISP connection seems to die you'll be
> able to see if one of your desktops has one of the blaster viruses
> that swamps the uplink bandwidth in 60 seconds, instead of having to
> unjack each desktop at the patch panel and wait and see if the problem
> clears up. Last year I had a client with unmanaged switches catch a
> virus on one of his desktops and it cost him a couple thousand in my
> time, plus lots of distruption, to find the offending PC.
>


Ok, I'm not so scared now. Doesn't sound much different from my home
wireless ADSL router/firewall.

The good things aboout this network is that there will only be about 4
people using the 20 machines. They all run linux and will be nothing
nothing but number crunching. It's not a big office with eveything
opening attachments from their "mates" and polluting the system.

I now realise that some of my old tools - like etherape wont work on a
switched hub. Am I correct thinking this? Hmmm - maybe I should look
into this some more...

Again, thanks for your time and effort,

Paul

In article <bvtq3t$abh$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ohh- that all sounds too complex for me. Network sniffers and the such.
>>> I tempted to go for the unmanaged switch. I know my way around linux
>>>pretty well - but am I complete networking novice. I think I should
>>>keep it simple (and cheap) for starters...
>>>
>>>Many thanks for all your help,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> YOu don't _have to_ use a sniffer, but if you get an unmanaged hub
>> you'll never have the option.
>>
>> The procurve switches I'm familiar with were really easy to manage.
>> When it boots it gets an IP address. From any desktop on your LAN you
>> browse to http:\\nn.nn.nn.nn (whatever IP # dhcp assigns it.) (For
>> extra credit you can figure out how to tell your dhcp server how to
>> always assign a static IP address to the switch, based on the MAC
>> address.)
>>
>> The first time your company's ISP connection seems to die you'll be
>> able to see if one of your desktops has one of the blaster viruses
>> that swamps the uplink bandwidth in 60 seconds, instead of having to
>> unjack each desktop at the patch panel and wait and see if the problem
>> clears up. Last year I had a client with unmanaged switches catch a
>> virus on one of his desktops and it cost him a couple thousand in my
>> time, plus lots of distruption, to find the offending PC.
>>
>
>
>Ok, I'm not so scared now. Doesn't sound much different from my home
>wireless ADSL router/firewall.
>
>The good things aboout this network is that there will only be about 4
>people using the 20 machines. They all run linux and will be nothing
>nothing but number crunching. It's not a big office with eveything
>opening attachments from their "mates" and polluting the system.
>
>I now realise that some of my old tools - like etherape wont work on a
>switched hub. Am I correct thinking this? Hmmm - maybe I should look
>into this some more...
>

A nice engineering environment. Users are such a PITA :-)

I don't know what etherapre is, but a simple switch doesn't give you
any way to see the big picture.

It sounds like you are doing some crunching over a LAN. If the day
comes when you want more machines or faster processing a managed
switch will give you packet counters that will help you understand if
the LAN will become the bottleneck. You could collect this on each
machine but looking at a web page is easier, and you get this right
out of the box. Also it reports link status so if someone calls you
and says his LAN connection has just died you can look at the switches
management web page and see if the link is broken without crawling
under a desk.

>Again, thanks for your time and effort,
>
>Paul


--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)

>
> PS - are all the 1000Mbit switches much of a muchness when you buy from
> Netgeat, Linksys, 3com...? Or is one company considered much
> better/worse than the others...???

I've had nothing but good experiences with Netgear. Linksys is a division of
Cisco - not saying if that's good or bad (I personally don't like Cisco).
3Com again except for a firewall I had, gave me good results. Out of the
three, I like Netgear.

--
Paddy

In article <bvtrkk$j6s$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paddy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> PS - are all the 1000Mbit switches much of a muchness when you buy from
>> Netgeat, Linksys, 3com...? Or is one company considered much
>> better/worse than the others...???
>
>I've had nothing but good experiences with Netgear. Linksys is a division of
>Cisco - not saying if that's good or bad (I personally don't like Cisco).
>3Com again except for a firewall I had, gave me good results. Out of the
>three, I like Netgear.
>
>--
>Paddy
>
>

Business or home use ? If it's for business, sometines price
is not the only consideration.


--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)