Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Any suugestion for good performance managed and unmanaged switch



 Jack Daniel wrote: 
> I like the ProCurves because of lifetime warranties- never deal with 
> contracts again! 
... 
> I've deployed some Dells, great for the $$, but not as stable as they should 
> be (tend to crash when you work the management console).  I think they are 
> just re-branded D-Links, it might be better to go direct to D-Link. 

The ProCurves, Dells, and most of the other low- to mid-ranged managed 
switches are all based on the same (Broadcom, I think) switch engines. 
So they tend to have similar features and problems.  The ProCurves used 
to have the same problems with hanging when accessed from the management 
console, and Dell will probably rediscover the same fix on their own (I 
don't know what it is, but the current ProCurves have the same 
architecture but not the hanging problem, or as many problems with 
Spanning Tree, or ...).  Also, they all have a back-end switch for 
models with more then 12 ports, and the caches are divided between the 
switch engines.  So the uplink ports will all tend to be on the same 
cache, and it is easier to saturate it since all of the traffic is 
running across that one cache.  So balancing your connections can help 
to avoid dropping packets, etc.  But, at any rate, they all have mostly 
the same architecture and components, and the HPs are further ahead in 
the development curve and tend to be slightly cheaper, so unless you can 
get one from Dell et al for cheaper as part of a bulk order or whatever, 
you are usually better off with the ProCurves. 

Sorry, that was more pontification then the question really needed. 

> Cisco switches are expensive for their feature set and the service contracts 
> are a royal pain. 

The Cisco also offer far more managed features compared to the others. 
But they also tend to have far more features then you will use, even if 
some of the ones they have are ones you want. 

> On the low end, I have always had amazingly good luck with dirt-cheap SMC 
> products- but I haven't deployed them anywhere critical (yet). 

I didn't think that SMC had managed switches.  Then again, companies 
like Broadcom are making it nearly a clone market. 

Hunter 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org