Large network and dumb switches

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Consider the following network. There are 3 levels connected one to
    each other in a tree-like hierarchy. In level A, up to 10 computers are
    connected to a 16-port switch. Those switches are connected to form
    level B, where up to 5 switches (also 16-port) are connected. The level
    C is up to 3 switches (but probably only one) that connect all the B
    level switches and possibly go to Internet through some router. Assume
    that there will be 100 - 300 computers (will increase over time)
    connected to the whole network, all of them on level A (probably never
    on level B).

    The main usage of the network will probably be Internet access and
    local area network gaming and file sharing. The most important part is
    that it works in the sense that manual work is not needed in most cases
    (i.e. resetting the switches or such). If it is a little slow
    sometimes, that might not be a huge problem.

    Do you think using dumb switches like:
    - Netgear JFS516
    - D-Link 1016D (,
    - Sweex LA200030
    or such would be enough? Of course, I would like to spend as less money
    as possible, but at the same time not buy some crap. How do these
    compare to switches like Cisco Catalyst (e.g. 2950)?

    The question is really - is Cisco-range the only choice in this
    situation because there is such a huge number of machines? It is not
    comparable by price, so I am thinking there must be a huge difference.
    However, you can run Linux for free, but it's not infinitely bad - on
    the contrary. Is this the case with these switches also?

    What is the difference between e.g.
    - Cisco switches like Catalyst 2950
    - D-Link switches like DES-1026G
    The latter costs 1/3 less and has double the number of ports... Will
    D-Link be able to process the information that is sent over the network
    in a decent manner?

    There must be some difference, thoguh. What would be the possible
    consequences - will it be slow, unreliable, hard to mantain or are
    there just some features that I might never need (and pay too
    needlessly for them)? As I said, I need basic networking that works
    without frequent manual intervention - no matter if its 3x slower than
    what can be achieved with equipment that costs 10x more. If it needs to
    be reset once in a month, that's not a big deal, but if it fails twice
    a day, then spending 10x less is just wasting money.

    Level C switch might be a Cisco-quality switch (since it's probably
    only one) - would that make any noticable difference?

    I have read about some of the differences on the Net. However, some of
    my friends suggest one choice, while the other suggest the other one.
    Which do you think is right?

    Did anyone build such networks? Practical experience would be the most
    important in these cases, so if anyone has experience with such
    low-budget switches and networks of these sizes, it would help me a lot.
    , Nov 16, 2006
    1. Advertising

  2. www.BradReese.Com, Nov 16, 2006
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. avraham shir-el
    avraham shir-el
    Jul 20, 2004
  2. David Napierkowski

    Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion

    David Napierkowski, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
  3. Au79

    Dumb, Dumb Vista

    Au79, Feb 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Feb 11, 2007
  4. Replies:
    Dec 30, 2008
  5. Greg
    Jul 1, 2013

Share This Page