|
Post by creimes on Mar 4, 2019 15:54:38 GMT -5
POE if you plan on POE WIFI access points and/or security cameras that use POE otherwise it's money you wouldn't have to spend, I just use a standard 8 port D-Link gigabit switch in my home. I'm trying to future proof myself a bit. As it sits, I will immediately tie up 12 switch ports, so I want room for expansion. I could go 16, but I'm also thinking POE due to exactly what you said, cameras. And I haven't nailed down yet whether I want to use a straight router with WAPs, or just get a strong wifi router and be done. The WAP route would need POE. Nothing wrong with future proofing, cheaper in the end, there are so many options now when it comes to home networking and wifi in the home it can make your head spin, these new whole home wifi products are pretty nice to in how they manage traffic on your devices and between each wifi pod, also I find having multiple wifi pods throughout the home is still a more even and better coverage than one more powerful unit, picturing it like one speaker turned up real loud for whole home audio compared to speakers in all the rooms
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 16:04:00 GMT -5
I'm trying to future proof myself a bit. As it sits, I will immediately tie up 12 switch ports, so I want room for expansion. I could go 16, but I'm also thinking POE due to exactly what you said, cameras. And I haven't nailed down yet whether I want to use a straight router with WAPs, or just get a strong wifi router and be done. The WAP route would need POE. Nothing wrong with future proofing, cheaper in the end, there are so many options now when it comes to home networking and wifi in the home it can make your head spin, these new whole home wifi products are pretty nice to in how they manage traffic on your devices and between each wifi pod, also I find having multiple wifi pods throughout the home is still a more even and better coverage than one more powerful unit, picturing it like one speaker turned up real loud for whole home audio compared to speakers in all the rooms +1. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 16:05:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 16:45:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Mar 4, 2019 16:48:37 GMT -5
Seems perfect and $60 off is a huge bonus
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,762
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 4, 2019 17:35:23 GMT -5
I have ASUS (5 port) and Netgear (8 port) gigabit switches. Neither is POE, but they have been rock solid. In any case, why 24 port? It seems like prices go up out of proportion to # of ports, and you only have 12 lines total going out from your source. I presume you will have ports on your router/cable modem you can use also. I do...and I use those to feed 3 of my other wall outlets. And one of those feeds the 5 port switch near my main AV setup. The 4th line out of my router feeds a switch which feeds 8 more outlets around the house. In your case, it looks like you could have a router with 4 ports, 3 of the ports could feed 3 lines out (such as to your office). 1 could feed a 12 port switch that fed the remaining 9 lines to your kitchen and AV system. And, that's all you need (unlesss you have plans for other things that are not listed in your system so far. Mark Well that's why I'm talking out loud here and tossing around ideas and haven't bought one yet. To get good advice from you folks who know more than I do about this stuff. What I decided was this. I could have ran 1 wire to each location from a central switch then put switches at each end. But since the wire was cheap (like $65 at Monoprice for the 500 feet), I figured while they were running 1 wire I might as well have them run multiples and be future safe. I can always add switches if necessary from there. But for what I have now, I'm covered. Yeah, 12 would cover me now. And you are right, I would pick up 3 extra with a router (since they usually have 4). But if I decide to go the WAP route, I would need 3 of those I think. And I'm also thinking about putting in some cameras, of which I would need at least 4. So that's 19 ports. I could do that with a 16 port and a router, or a 24 port. But, for my needs, I'm really thinking that instead of WAPs, I might just get a strong wifi router and be done there. So it would be a matter of having room for cameras. I could do a 12 port switch for now and buy another smaller one later if I do cameras, or I could buy a 16 port switch now and be done. Decisions decisions. Oh, and don't forget who you are talking to here. I am the KING of wanting more inputs. There is enough proof of that in the XMC and RMC threads to last a lifetime. LOL! You are the King of Excessive Inputs, for sure! That said - it looks like the main devices you have a need for in the short term don't need POE. And, a brief look at POE says that adds a lot to the cost of a switch. I'd consider going with an inexpensive 12 port non-POE switch for now for $50-$70, then as you really need POE - figure out how many POE ports you really need and add that on. On "really strong wifi router", I have an ASUS RT-AC3200 and it covers my house very well. I can be outside my house up to 100' away and get solid signal. And, despite my house being 3 stories and sprawling over 80' wide on the main floor, I get solid signal everywhere inside. I'll likely get another ASUS once this one either dies or becomes obsolete. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 17:53:23 GMT -5
Well that's why I'm talking out loud here and tossing around ideas and haven't bought one yet. To get good advice from you folks who know more than I do about this stuff. What I decided was this. I could have ran 1 wire to each location from a central switch then put switches at each end. But since the wire was cheap (like $65 at Monoprice for the 500 feet), I figured while they were running 1 wire I might as well have them run multiples and be future safe. I can always add switches if necessary from there. But for what I have now, I'm covered. Yeah, 12 would cover me now. And you are right, I would pick up 3 extra with a router (since they usually have 4). But if I decide to go the WAP route, I would need 3 of those I think. And I'm also thinking about putting in some cameras, of which I would need at least 4. So that's 19 ports. I could do that with a 16 port and a router, or a 24 port. But, for my needs, I'm really thinking that instead of WAPs, I might just get a strong wifi router and be done there. So it would be a matter of having room for cameras. I could do a 12 port switch for now and buy another smaller one later if I do cameras, or I could buy a 16 port switch now and be done. Decisions decisions. Oh, and don't forget who you are talking to here. I am the KING of wanting more inputs. There is enough proof of that in the XMC and RMC threads to last a lifetime. LOL! You are the King of Excessive Inputs, for sure! That said - it looks like the main devices you have a need for in the short term don't need POE. And, a brief look at POE says that adds a lot to the cost of a switch. I'd consider going with an inexpensive 12 port non-POE switch for now for $50-$70, then as you really need POE - figure out how many POE ports you really need and add that on. On "really strong wifi router", I have an ASUS RT-AC3200 and it covers my house very well. I can be outside my house up to 100' away and get solid signal. And, despite my house being 3 stories and sprawling over 80' wide on the main floor, I get solid signal everywhere inside. I'll likely get another ASUS once this one either dies or becomes obsolete. Mark That's the same router the guy at Micro Center advised, and they have it cheaper than Amazon @ $180. It's a good one. As for the switch, I'm gonna think about it for a bit. I'm on hold for at least 2 weeks anyway.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 4, 2019 17:55:06 GMT -5
The prices jump up in part because of things other than simply the port count. There's a lot more going on inside a switch than the number of ports it has.
Larger switches, along with having more ports, generally have a faster backplane (switching matrix), and are usually manageable. And a lot of whether that matters to you will depend on exactly what sort of traffic you generate.
To put that in perspective, if you want to watch one 4k video, on one client, from one server, a typical 8-port "home switch" will probably do fine. However, if you wanted to watch four different movies, on four different players, from four different players, even though the 8-port switch had enough connections, it probably wouldn't be FAST enough.
(But a 24 port "enterprise level" switch would be more than fast enough.) By network traffic standards, most of us probably will never have a lot of traffic, so it probably won't matter.... but that's one of the reason why the big switches cost so much more.
You should also get in the habit of distinguishing between switches and routers.
Your cable modem does NOT have a four port router in it. Your cable modem has a four port SWITCH; and that four port switch is connected to the Internet via a two port ROUTER. In fact, it's probably a three-port router... with that third port connected to a WiFi Access Point... which is probably set up as a router. Your cable model also has a DHCP server in it, probably some firewall capabilities, and quite possibly a few other functions as well.
(And the traffic connections between those four switch ports are very fast - while the routed connections are much slower - especially if you send a lot of small packets.)
The main distinction I would add to all this is that wires are almost always faster and more reliable than wireless connections. Yes, WiFi connections CAN be good enough, and they CAN be reliable, and they CAN have excellent range. However, wired connections are usually faster, more consistent, and more reliable... and they don't suffer from interference or being blocked by the odd piece of metal in the wall. And, while both of them slow down a bit over long distances, that also affects WiFi FAR more than wired connections.
So, if you have the ability to do so, you're ALWAYS better off running wires...
And, if you have a large home, or a large area to cover, run wires from various spots back to a central location to serve as your "IT closet"... (often referred to as "home runs" - because all the wires run back to "home base"). This allows you to put all your central equipment in one spot...
You can always add wireless access points later... but they're always going to be a second-best choice to an actual wired connection.
Bear in mind that WiFi uses RADIO WAVES...
This means that, even if it works great now, you could find that the performance deteriorates over time... Like when you or your neighbor gets a new cordless phone... or some new lighting with dimmers... or that fancy new lawn mower... (
I have ASUS (5 port) and Netgear (8 port) gigabit switches. Neither is POE, but they have been rock solid. In any case, why 24 port? It seems like prices go up out of proportion to # of ports, and you only have 12 lines total going out from your source. I presume you will have ports on your router/cable modem you can use also. I do...and I use those to feed 3 of my other wall outlets. And one of those feeds the 5 port switch near my main AV setup. The 4th line out of my router feeds a switch which feeds 8 more outlets around the house. In your case, it looks like you could have a router with 4 ports, 3 of the ports could feed 3 lines out (such as to your office). 1 could feed a 12 port switch that fed the remaining 9 lines to your kitchen and AV system. And, that's all you need (unlesss you have plans for other things that are not listed in your system so far. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 18:14:09 GMT -5
The main distinction I would add to all this is that wires are almost always faster and more reliable than wireless connections.[Yes, WiFi connections CAN be good enough, and they CAN be reliable, and they CAN have excellent range. However, wired connections are usually faster, more consistent, and more reliable... and they don't suffer from interference or being blocked by the odd piece of metal in the wall. And, while both of them slow down a bit over long distances, that also affects WiFi FAR more than wired connections. So, if you have the ability to do so, you're ALWAYS better off running wires... And, if you have a large home, or a large area to cover, run wires from various spots back to a central location to serve as your "IT closet"... (often referred to as "home runs" - because all the wires run back to "home base"). This allows you to put all your central equipment in one spot...You can always add wireless access points later... but they're always going to be a second-best choice to an actual wired connection. Check here. >>>> emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/983312/thread <<<<< That's exactly what I did and the entire gist of this thread. So I think I'm good in the wiring department. What I need next is a switch to connect it all to.Then, when I get time, I'm going to get a new Modem (Modem only, no extras), and then decide if I want to go with a wireless router like the one Mark suggested, or use WAPs instead. If I were to buy a Modem right now, today, it would probably be this one. www.amazon.com/ARRIS-SURFboard-SB6190-DOCSIS-Cable/dp/B016PE1X5KAnd then probably the router Mark suggested above.
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Mar 4, 2019 18:35:41 GMT -5
I'm another Ubiquiti user and I can't recommend their gear enough... it simply works and works very well. I'm running 2 of their AP AC Pros and a AP AC IW with a 24 Port PoE switch in my home (have 3 ports left) and will be running their 48 Port PoE switch with 2 AP AC Pros in my second home in Florida. I was lucky to obtain both switches during a free give-a-way in their forums.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 19:53:59 GMT -5
I'm another Ubiquiti user and I can't recommend their gear enough... it simply works and works very well. I'm running 2 of their AP AC Pros and a AP AC IW with a 24 Port PoE switch in my home (have 3 ports left) and will be running their 48 Port PoE switch with 2 AP AC Pros in my second home in Florida. I was lucky to obtain both switches during a free give-a-way in their forums. I have read a lot of good things about that brand and their WAPs. I was all set to go that route a year ago when the nerd at Micro Center said for me and my simple things I need, it was over kill and took more effort to set up. He also asked if I was more a PC guy or an Apple guy. He then went on to compare Ubiquiti to Apple. How it all works and works well, but how it's kind of like Apple that you need to go all in with all their products, and once you go down that road you are sort of stuck for life. I honestly don't think for a switch and WAPs it would matter to me. But a 1 router solution is most definitely easier than going the multi WAP route. But if you have time I'd love to hear more about your feelings and if you could even comment about what the nerd said, that would be great. Thing is, I will now have all the big stuff wired. TVs, Sat Boxes, Processor, (streamer when I get one), Roon (if I decide to try that), 2 computers, the printer, and a lap top at the kitchen desk (after our remodel). So the wireless part is basically for our phones, and a future tablet (nope, we don't even have one of those). Its just my wife and I. No kids. 99% its only one TV and one channel on at a time. We don't have the need for crazy everything running options. I just want to be able to get internet TV options well, and send music from my computer to the stereo. Now that I'm wired up I can start exploring my options and give the modern world a try.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,762
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 4, 2019 20:03:03 GMT -5
The prices jump up in part because of things other than simply the port count. There's a lot more going on inside a switch than the number of ports it has.
Larger switches, along with having more ports, generally have a faster backplane (switching matrix), and are usually manageable. And a lot of whether that matters to you will depend on exactly what sort of traffic you generate. To put that in perspective, if you want to watch one 4k video, on one client, from one server, a typical 8-port "home switch" will probably do fine. However, if you wanted to watch four different movies, on four different players, from four different players, even though the 8-port switch had enough connections, it probably wouldn't be FAST enough.
(But a 24 port "enterprise level" switch would be more than fast enough.) By network traffic standards, most of us probably will never have a lot of traffic, so it probably won't matter.... but that's one of the reason why the big switches cost so much more.
You should also get in the habit of distinguishing between switches and routers. Your cable modem does NOT have a four port router in it. Your cable modem has a four port SWITCH; and that four port switch is connected to the Internet via a two port ROUTER. In fact, it's probably a three-port router... with that third port connected to a WiFi Access Point... which is probably set up as a router. Your cable model also has a DHCP server in it, probably some firewall capabilities, and quite possibly a few other functions as well.
(And the traffic connections between those four switch ports are very fast - while the routed connections are much slower - especially if you send a lot of small packets.) The main distinction I would add to all this is that wires are almost always faster and more reliable than wireless connections. Yes, WiFi connections CAN be good enough, and they CAN be reliable, and they CAN have excellent range. However, wired connections are usually faster, more consistent, and more reliable... and they don't suffer from interference or being blocked by the odd piece of metal in the wall. And, while both of them slow down a bit over long distances, that also affects WiFi FAR more than wired connections.
So, if you have the ability to do so, you're ALWAYS better off running wires...
And, if you have a large home, or a large area to cover, run wires from various spots back to a central location to serve as your "IT closet"... (often referred to as "home runs" - because all the wires run back to "home base"). This allows you to put all your central equipment in one spot...
You can always add wireless access points later... but they're always going to be a second-best choice to an actual wired connection. Bear in mind that WiFi uses RADIO WAVES...
This means that, even if it works great now, you could find that the performance deteriorates over time... Like when you or your neighbor gets a new cordless phone... or some new lighting with dimmers... or that fancy new lawn mower... (
I have ASUS (5 port) and Netgear (8 port) gigabit switches. Neither is POE, but they have been rock solid. In any case, why 24 port? It seems like prices go up out of proportion to # of ports, and you only have 12 lines total going out from your source. I presume you will have ports on your router/cable modem you can use also. I do...and I use those to feed 3 of my other wall outlets. And one of those feeds the 5 port switch near my main AV setup. The 4th line out of my router feeds a switch which feeds 8 more outlets around the house. In your case, it looks like you could have a router with 4 ports, 3 of the ports could feed 3 lines out (such as to your office). 1 could feed a 12 port switch that fed the remaining 9 lines to your kitchen and AV system. And, that's all you need (unlesss you have plans for other things that are not listed in your system so far. Mark Keith...you know, it really doesn't matter "why" the cost goes up out of proportion to the number of ports. Interesting perspective, but...it really doesn't matter. I simply said the cost goes up out of proportion to number of ports. And, it does. Also, where did I say that his cable modem has a "4 port router"? I didn't say that at all. I said his router would likely have 4 ports. He can choose to use those ports to feed various things...like...devices that need the signal or switches that feed yet other devices. Good lord... Mark
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 4, 2019 20:40:30 GMT -5
Failed to mention, I have Spectrum 100 download service. Next step up and highest available in my neighborhood is 300, but I'm not going to pay for that until I see a need.
I pay for 100, but either I don't get it, or my self bought Arris Surfboard modem/wireless router/switch isn't giving me all they are sending. Wired I only get about 80-85. Wireless is a crap shoot. Some days I get more up load speed than download. But its never more than 35, even standing right next to the router.
But, moving the Arris to the pantry has helped a lot in the main room. I was only getting 1.5 wirelessly, and now I'm getting somewhere between 15 and 25.
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Mar 4, 2019 20:44:47 GMT -5
I wouldn't compare Ubiquiti to Apple, and no, you don't need to go all in with Ubiquiti either. I would consider Apple as consumer based equipment, where as Ubiquiti is more enterprise grade hardware; however, with a lower price point; a lot of power users run Ubiquiti at home. You don't need to purchase their switches nor USG; which is their router / secure gateway. The APs come with a PoE injector, so you don't need a PoE switch and can be the wireless portion of an existing wireless rotuer... that is actually the way I initially started. Same goes with their, free, controller software... no, you don't need it running all the time. Once the APs are connected to your network and adopted within the controller, they will "hold" their configuration without the controller software (Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.) running. Without the controller running you'll loose the metrics gathered from the APs, so if that's ok for your needs, it's a perfectly fine way to dip your toes into the Ubiquiti ecosystem. In all honesty, if you can navigate the UI of Asus, Netgear, or other home wireless systems, Ubiquiti won't feel that different to you... you just need to learn the new locations to make changes of which would be the same with moving from Asus to Netgear for example.
I have more devices connected within my home network than you do; however, I still feel that using an Asus or Netgear router with Ubiquiti APs, that you'll have a more robust and stronger wireless connection throughout your home than with any consumer mesh or even going with multiple wireless routers. The APs are mounted on my ceiling and therefore basically blend into the ceiling and yes, you can disable the blue LED on the APs. I originally used an Asus (can't recall the model) with DD-WRT, also tried Tomato firmware, but eventually made the switch to Ubiquiti and will never go back to consumer network equipment.
I know you're basically done with the wiring, but in my home, I ran a minimum of one CAT6 cable to each room through my attic to the second floor and then pulled cables to the first floor where rooms had common closet locations. On the first floor, I cut a thin channel where the sheetock met the floor and covered it with the floor trim. Within our second home, I had the builder swap out phone and RG6 infavor of CAT6 to each room... again with multiple drops in specific locations. He pulled CAT6 for 2 APs as well as placed a couple of network drops outdoors for PoE cameras.
We stream everything through Plex, Netflix, SlingTV, Prime and HD OTA TV content throughout the house. I have an HD HomeRun Dual to stream the OT content throughout the house and use Nvidia Shields at the TVs.
|
|
|
Post by LuisV on Mar 4, 2019 20:59:41 GMT -5
Failed to mention, I have Spectrum 100 download service. Next step up and highest available in my neighborhood is 300, but I'm not going to pay for that until I see a need. I pay for 100, but either I don't get it, or my self bought Arris Surfboard modem/wireless router/switch isn't giving me all they are sending. Wired I only get about 80-85. Wireless is a crap shoot. Some days I get more up load speed than download. But its never more than 35, even standing right next to the router. But, moving the Arris to the pantry has helped a lot in the main room. I was only getting 1.5 wirelessly, and now I'm getting somewhere between 15 and 25. I'm not familiar with cable modem brands, but my cousin replaced his with one from Amazon and he saw a performance gain, nevermind the cost savings he recieved as he's not paying his provider a monthly fee for that modem. I'm sure you're aware, but walls, doors, etc. will reduce the strength of your wireless signal and is one of the advantages of the ceiling mounted APs. I'm a FIOS 1GB customer and although they call it 1GB, it's actually not true 1GB speed, but it's close enough. Below is a wired speed test. To be honest, I doubt you're saturate your current plan... I rarely came close when I had FIOS 75 / 75. I switched to their 1GB plan during an incentive sale as it was the same cost as my 75 / 75 plan.
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Mar 5, 2019 0:10:41 GMT -5
Well that's why I'm talking out loud here and tossing around ideas and haven't bought one yet. To get good advice from you folks who know more than I do about this stuff. What I decided was this. I could have ran 1 wire to each location from a central switch then put switches at each end. But since the wire was cheap (like $65 at Monoprice for the 500 feet), I figured while they were running 1 wire I might as well have them run multiples and be future safe. I can always add switches if necessary from there. But for what I have now, I'm covered. Yeah, 12 would cover me now. And you are right, I would pick up 3 extra with a router (since they usually have 4). But if I decide to go the WAP route, I would need 3 of those I think. And I'm also thinking about putting in some cameras, of which I would need at least 4. So that's 19 ports. I could do that with a 16 port and a router, or a 24 port. But, for my needs, I'm really thinking that instead of WAPs, I might just get a strong wifi router and be done there. So it would be a matter of having room for cameras. I could do a 12 port switch for now and buy another smaller one later if I do cameras, or I could buy a 16 port switch now and be done. Decisions decisions. Oh, and don't forget who you are talking to here. I am the KING of wanting more inputs. There is enough proof of that in the XMC and RMC threads to last a lifetime. LOL! You are the King of Excessive Inputs, for sure! That said - it looks like the main devices you have a need for in the short term don't need POE. And, a brief look at POE says that adds a lot to the cost of a switch. I'd consider going with an inexpensive 12 port non-POE switch for now for $50-$70, then as you really need POE - figure out how many POE ports you really need and add that on. On "really strong wifi router", I have an ASUS RT-AC3200 and it covers my house very well. I can be outside my house up to 100' away and get solid signal. And, despite my house being 3 stories and sprawling over 80' wide on the main floor, I get solid signal everywhere inside. I'll likely get another ASUS once this one either dies or becomes obsolete. Mark Yep, I'm rocking dual Asus RT-AC3100's in Asus's aimesh. Absolutely perfect!
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,762
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 5, 2019 8:01:24 GMT -5
Failed to mention, I have Spectrum 100 download service. Next step up and highest available in my neighborhood is 300, but I'm not going to pay for that until I see a need. I pay for 100, but either I don't get it, or my self bought Arris Surfboard modem/wireless router/switch isn't giving me all they are sending. Wired I only get about 80-85. Wireless is a crap shoot. Some days I get more up load speed than download. But its never more than 35, even standing right next to the router. But, moving the Arris to the pantry has helped a lot in the main room. I was only getting 1.5 wirelessly, and now I'm getting somewhere between 15 and 25. I can't recall if I have Spectrum's 100 or 200, but it's enough for us for now. There is streaming going on somewhere in our house (often from 2 or 3 locations at a time) most of the time and we don't have any issues. So, yeah...wait until you have a need for more then go for it. Mark
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Mar 5, 2019 9:11:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Mar 5, 2019 9:44:40 GMT -5
Failed to mention, I have Spectrum 100 download service. Next step up and highest available in my neighborhood is 300, but I'm not going to pay for that until I see a need. I pay for 100, but either I don't get it, or my self bought Arris Surfboard modem/wireless router/switch isn't giving me all they are sending. Wired I only get about 80-85. Wireless is a crap shoot. Some days I get more up load speed than download. But its never more than 35, even standing right next to the router. But, moving the Arris to the pantry has helped a lot in the main room. I was only getting 1.5 wirelessly, and now I'm getting somewhere between 15 and 25. I'm not familiar with cable modem brands, but my cousin replaced his with one from Amazon and he saw a performance gain, nevermind the cost savings he recieved as he's not paying his provider a monthly fee for that modem. I'm sure you're aware, but walls, doors, etc. will reduce the strength of your wireless signal and is one of the advantages of the ceiling mounted APs. I'm a FIOS 1GB customer and although they call it 1GB, it's actually not true 1GB speed, but it's close enough. Below is a wired speed test. To be honest, I doubt you're saturate your current plan... I rarely came close when I had FIOS 75 / 75. I switched to their 1GB plan during an incentive sale as it was the same cost as my 75 / 75 plan. View AttachmentWow. We don't have anything even close to that here, or at least not in my neighborhood.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,961
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 5, 2019 11:51:35 GMT -5
I both agree and disagree with your statement. If the only difference was the cost - then I would agree with you. However, if the additional cost is buying you something extra, then it may or may not be a worthwhile investment, and that may depend on your exact requirements.
It could be that, in some cases, you really are simply paying more for "an enterprise switch" instead of "a home switch" because it's being sold as a 'commercial product". However, it could also be that the enterprise switch really does some things better, and the difference may in fact matter to SOME home users.
For example, if you have a single music server, and three kids who watch streaming movies over the Internet, in a huge house, and you need 24 ports... Then connecting three 8-port switches to your cable modem may deliver quite adequate performance for everyone... However, if you have a video server of your own, and you want to watch a movie from your server, while two of the kid watch two different movies over the Internet, you may find that it doesn't work well at all.
And it will all be very different again if someone in the front bedroom is downloading a new copy of Windows 10 while you're trying to watch those movies.
And, in that case, you may find that a single 24-port enterprise speed switch delivers very different performance than your stack of home switches.
(In fact, with the stack-o-switches, it will depend on what is connected where... while the enterprise switch should deliver equally good performance on all of its ports.)
Likewise, I see endless talk of "just plug in the wireless access point and you're connected"......
But very little discussion of exactly what speed and latency you get at what distance...... (Which varies considerably between equipment.)
And, if you want to watch a 4k streaming video, without endless dropouts and buffering, it matters......
And, yes, I'll admit to being a bit pedantic when it comes to network descriptions and details....
But routers and switches have very different performance characteristics.... And, while not everyone wants to dig into all the messy details, they do often affect what performance you get, and what it costs you.
The prices jump up in part because of things other than simply the port count. There's a lot more going on inside a switch than the number of ports it has.
Larger switches, along with having more ports, generally have a faster backplane (switching matrix), and are usually manageable. And a lot of whether that matters to you will depend on exactly what sort of traffic you generate. To put that in perspective, if you want to watch one 4k video, on one client, from one server, a typical 8-port "home switch" will probably do fine. However, if you wanted to watch four different movies, on four different players, from four different players, even though the 8-port switch had enough connections, it probably wouldn't be FAST enough.
(But a 24 port "enterprise level" switch would be more than fast enough.) By network traffic standards, most of us probably will never have a lot of traffic, so it probably won't matter.... but that's one of the reason why the big switches cost so much more.
You should also get in the habit of distinguishing between switches and routers. Your cable modem does NOT have a four port router in it. Your cable modem has a four port SWITCH; and that four port switch is connected to the Internet via a two port ROUTER. In fact, it's probably a three-port router... with that third port connected to a WiFi Access Point... which is probably set up as a router. Your cable model also has a DHCP server in it, probably some firewall capabilities, and quite possibly a few other functions as well.
(And the traffic connections between those four switch ports are very fast - while the routed connections are much slower - especially if you send a lot of small packets.) The main distinction I would add to all this is that wires are almost always faster and more reliable than wireless connections. Yes, WiFi connections CAN be good enough, and they CAN be reliable, and they CAN have excellent range. However, wired connections are usually faster, more consistent, and more reliable... and they don't suffer from interference or being blocked by the odd piece of metal in the wall. And, while both of them slow down a bit over long distances, that also affects WiFi FAR more than wired connections.
So, if you have the ability to do so, you're ALWAYS better off running wires...
And, if you have a large home, or a large area to cover, run wires from various spots back to a central location to serve as your "IT closet"... (often referred to as "home runs" - because all the wires run back to "home base"). This allows you to put all your central equipment in one spot...
You can always add wireless access points later... but they're always going to be a second-best choice to an actual wired connection. Bear in mind that WiFi uses RADIO WAVES...
This means that, even if it works great now, you could find that the performance deteriorates over time... Like when you or your neighbor gets a new cordless phone... or some new lighting with dimmers... or that fancy new lawn mower... (
Keith...you know, it really doesn't matter "why" the cost goes up out of proportion to the number of ports. Interesting perspective, but...it really doesn't matter. I simply said the cost goes up out of proportion to number of ports. And, it does. Also, where did I say that his cable modem has a "4 port router"? I didn't say that at all. I said his router would likely have 4 ports. He can choose to use those ports to feed various things...like...devices that need the signal or switches that feed yet other devices. Good lord... Mark
|
|