So I'm in the market for a 24 port gigabit network switch. Since I know enough to be dangerous. I'm still a little confused if I need a dumb switch or a managed switch for my home network.
I run pfsense at the front followed by the new 24 port switch I'm looking for. Connected to the switch will be 2 Win server 2012 r2(both hand-me-downs), 2 freenas boxes for backups, 1 workstation, 2 laptops, 2 blue ray DVD players, future possibility of a proxmox machine and ubuntu server(so I can get away from MS). All the servers will have dual gigabit NICs. I do tinker with different machines from time to time with different Linux distros. Total required ports=14
I have an 8 port managed switch with LAGG for my servers. But I believe that having everything on 1 switch with VLANs would yeild better result than three 8 port switches that I've added as I expanded. Any thoughts?
1 Like
I would go with a managed switch because it will allow you to control computer to computer communication. Will also give you QoS control because the router can only do QoS for traffic going through it.
Dont want your smart TVs to conspire against you now do we? /s
2 Likes
Well, an enterprise topology most likely wouldn't make sense for most soho situations, but in such configurations, it would not be unusual for traffic to pass through 4-6 switches, before arriving at the core switch. Therefore, I honestly don't think that using three 8-port switches as you describe, is going to hurt your network performance.
I have a small cabinet with my modem, router/firewall, VoIP box and a switch. From there I have constructed a star pattern. There is another switch in my office where there are some PCs and servers. There is a switch in my lab where there are some NAS boxes and an ATSC TV tuner and there is a switch in the TV room, where there is an assortment of toys. In other words, I have a switch wherever there is a cluster of networked hardware and each switch has a home run back to the switch where the firewall is located. All of my switches are Layer 2 with gigabit ports and with one exception they all contain 16 - 24 ports. They also all run several VLANs, as do my access points. Using multiple switches like this is extremely convenient, minimizes cable runs and it does not adversely affect throughput.
VLANs require a L2, or Layer 2 switch. These are often referred to as a "smart" switch, or a managed switch. What's the difference? A managed switch is an enterprise grade device that does all the things (except for routing - that's a layer 3 switch). A smart switch is a managed switch with a pared down feature set and (hopefully) a pared down price. They usually support VLANs, QoS, Spanning Tree and a few other odds and ends, but not the fancy stuff that you'll never need in a soho environment.
If you want to run VLANs, it sounds like your decision has already been made. You need L2 hardware.
I have a couple of antique D-Link smart switches that have been surprisingly reliable, even though they are fan-less (and quiet!!!). I also bought a couple of Cisco Business class switches about +/- four years ago that have been wonderful, though I confess that I haven't shopped for switches in a long time, so I don't know what's currently out there. Cisco's business class hardware, though, is surprisingly capable and affordable (at least it was back in the day), so I would suggest that you start there.
3 Likes
If you are serious about networking then having a main managed switch gives you more options to control your L2 network and lets you more finely dictate what the individual machines on the switch can do by setting up VLANs or QoS rules. I've had a much better experience setting up QoS on my managed switch vs pfSense and to keep more sensitive parts of my network sectioned off from the less trustworthy parts of the network. Also having multiple dumb switches shouldn't cause a performance penalty other than adding slightly more latency but its usually not by very much, my main switch connects to multiple other dumb switches and it works fine.
2 Likes
Definitely some food for thought. Thanks for the input. Now based on streaming devices and online games, will Qos traffic control help or hinder say Netflix. My lovely wife doesn't really care to much about the network until the wifi doesn't work or Netflix takes forever to load. What kind of limit should I expect to set for Netflix so when I get around to playing some steam games I'm not "sucking hind tit" as my N+ teacher used to say.
I was happily ignorant of QoS, until I moved to the sticks and I had to settle for a 1Mbps DSL link. I couldn't check my e-mail, without causing YouTube to crash and burn. Fortunately, pfSense came to my rescue. With pfSense's traffic shaper, I can now stream four videos, a couple of audio streams, check e-mail and play on-line games simultaneously, all without a single hiccup.
I find that Ubiquiti's EdgeRouter also has a pretty user friendly traffic shaper, too.
While pfSense and Ubiquiti both allow for caps, I get better results by allowing the shaper to do its thing. The most difficult part of the configuration is getting a consistent, reliable measurement of your up-link and down-link capacity. The worse possible thing that you can do is to overestimate your capacity.
Bottom line: yes, you need to implement a traffic shaping strategy to reign in Netflix. I also would recommend not streaming a bandwidth hog such as Netflix, over WiFi, if at all possible. WiFi is like a party line, only one "speaker" can talk at a time (unless you have the latest & greatest MIMO hardware). If Netflix is yammering on, then it will be tough for the other devices to have a chance to talk. An Ethernet connection would be best for Netflix, if you can swing it.