Home / server / Questions / 485474
Accepted
davidparks21
Asked: 2013-03-07 21:50:02 +0800 CST

For a single rack is there a good reason to use an enterprise switch over a more simple option?

  • 772

We putting up a rack of 12 (maybe 24-30 later) servers (moving off AWS) and we have only a modest level of networking skill on our team (an out of date CCNA admin).

In looking at two possible switches, I wonder if there's a reason we'd go with the recommended FastIron enterprise level switch rather than the seemingly easier to configure DLink switch listed below.

D-Link DGS-1210-48 Web Smart 10/100/1000Mbps Gigabit Switch With 4 Combo SFP Slots

  vs.

FastIron GS 648P

The D-Link switch appears to have all of the necessary features to support our need (VLAN support, trunking, the basics), and it has a remote management web-based UI, where the FastIron, I believe, only has console access (we don't have a KVM as all the servers & firewall also have an IP based management console).

Any reason to fear going with the D-Link option in this case?

networking

2 Answers

  1. Best Answer

    It really depends on your network requirements and load. For example, for my most recent project I selected expensive, high-end switches because our SAN requires jumbo frames, flow-control, and large packet buffers. Most low-end switches can't provide all of those features or not all at once.

    Many low-end switches do not have adequate backplane speeds, so you cannot make full use of each port in both directions at once.

    Many low-end switches are not manufactured as robustly (cheap fans, cheap power supplies, etc.) so they are, in general, more likely to fail.

    So... Do you need to be able to read/write at Gb speeds on a majority of the ports at once? Do you have specialized network requirements? Is reliability extremely important? If so, then you want the FastIron. If not, the D-Link will probably be fine for a while.

    • 3

  2. This is not easy to answer. It depends on your budget and how critical it is to be online 24/7.

    If your budget is very limited but still you still have strict uptime requirements (somewhat mutually exclusive, you get what you pay for) you could get two of the cheaper switches (and 2 firewalls (could be linux servers) etc.) and implement a load balancing solution using something like haproxy.

    On the other hand it pays off to go with sufficiently robust hardware from the start. Cisco switches will just work for decades, can be expanded, have redundancy etc.

    If you go with the cheap switch don't expect it to do much more with it than vlans (personally I'd avoid vlans if at all possible). Cheap means it's not gonna be very good at much beyond being a plain switch. With regards to cheap perhaps also take a look at dell switches.

    • 1