1bigboomstick
asked on
One big switch vs multiple smaller ones?
Hello,
I'm thinking that I should use this slow period to try and upgrade our infrastructure a bit.
We have about 30 workstations in our office, 5 servers, and 8 Network printers.
What I'm wondering is, what would be better
A) Having things seperated by smaller switches, and the smaller switches connected to one central switch. (Printserver and printers on one switch, Oil Data and users on another switch, Land Data and users on another, Admin data and users on another. Have the DC also connected to the main switch)
or
B) As I have it now, two 24 port switches, one connected to the other, and everthing coming off the two of them.
The oil users usually only access the oil data and print, but sometimes they would access the admin data. And the same goes for the other groups, they usually only access their own data, but sometimes they go to the other data sources.
Assuming that we are 100% GB, switches (unmanaged), NICs, Cat5e, would either method have a significant benefit over the other?
Thanks
Deano
I'm thinking that I should use this slow period to try and upgrade our infrastructure a bit.
We have about 30 workstations in our office, 5 servers, and 8 Network printers.
What I'm wondering is, what would be better
A) Having things seperated by smaller switches, and the smaller switches connected to one central switch. (Printserver and printers on one switch, Oil Data and users on another switch, Land Data and users on another, Admin data and users on another. Have the DC also connected to the main switch)
or
B) As I have it now, two 24 port switches, one connected to the other, and everthing coming off the two of them.
The oil users usually only access the oil data and print, but sometimes they would access the admin data. And the same goes for the other groups, they usually only access their own data, but sometimes they go to the other data sources.
Assuming that we are 100% GB, switches (unmanaged), NICs, Cat5e, would either method have a significant benefit over the other?
Thanks
Deano
chatxfalcon
On my understanding its a best practice to use 2x24 port switch. But make sure your uplink line is faster then those normal ports. To avoid bottleneck in cascading switches.
I am a fan of using the distributed approach where you effectively have core, distribution and access layer devices.
Going with scenario A):
In this scenario, your router and high-end networking gear act as the core layer,
Your primary switch acts as the distribution layer feeding the other switches
The other switches act as your access layer that interfaces with the clients.
This is a model that Cisco Systems uses and created, so I personally would recommend it. You put less load on the primary switches by using smaller switches localized to groups.
In this case, since the switches are unmanaged, you cannot limit based on switch / where the user belongs. If you had managed switches, this would allow you to place limitations / controls on what user can see what data.
Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else,
-Yegs
Going with scenario A):
In this scenario, your router and high-end networking gear act as the core layer,
Your primary switch acts as the distribution layer feeding the other switches
The other switches act as your access layer that interfaces with the clients.
This is a model that Cisco Systems uses and created, so I personally would recommend it. You put less load on the primary switches by using smaller switches localized to groups.
In this case, since the switches are unmanaged, you cannot limit based on switch / where the user belongs. If you had managed switches, this would allow you to place limitations / controls on what user can see what data.
Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else,
-Yegs
I agree with post 1 all the way and the concept of post 2.
I would definitely upgrade to two 24 port gigabit managed switches with fiber uplinks. That should get you well into the future.I would absolutely buy managed switches (personally, HP Procurve) in case you get VoIP later or SIP, which you probably will sooner than you think. Managed switches will also help you with an multimedia that you may implement years down the road as well. Managed switches can seperate your VLANs out between Oil and Land if that need arises.
Procurve has a lifetime warranty on hardware and software + free upgrades forever. That is future proofing your maintenance costs to be sure.
I would definitely upgrade to two 24 port gigabit managed switches with fiber uplinks. That should get you well into the future.I would absolutely buy managed switches (personally, HP Procurve) in case you get VoIP later or SIP, which you probably will sooner than you think. Managed switches will also help you with an multimedia that you may implement years down the road as well. Managed switches can seperate your VLANs out between Oil and Land if that need arises.
Procurve has a lifetime warranty on hardware and software + free upgrades forever. That is future proofing your maintenance costs to be sure.
you do not need a single point of failure.
ASKER
I appreciate all of the opinions; please keep them coming.
Deano
Deano
Coupling on the other facts presented, it would be highly advisable to get managed switches so you can add redundancy in your topology. With managed switches, you eliminate your single point of failure (as stated in a previous post) if you enable spanning tree.
This will effectively allow you to link two distribution switches together and have redundancy in case one switch goes down.
It is definitely worth the extra money to upgrade to managed switches. This will give you much greater control of your network (assuming you want to add access-lists, maybe control bandwidth, segregate the network based on department, etc - you will have seemingly infinite control contrary to what you have now).
I still think you are better off to use managed switches with a distribution layer feeding the smaller groups of users. :)
Best,
-Yegs
This will effectively allow you to link two distribution switches together and have redundancy in case one switch goes down.
It is definitely worth the extra money to upgrade to managed switches. This will give you much greater control of your network (assuming you want to add access-lists, maybe control bandwidth, segregate the network based on department, etc - you will have seemingly infinite control contrary to what you have now).
I still think you are better off to use managed switches with a distribution layer feeding the smaller groups of users. :)
Best,
-Yegs
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
For Managed switches you might also want to check this link:
Its about cascading and stackable switches..
Its about cascading and stackable switches..
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.