Scott McClanahan wrote:
> I'll probably rule out anything that doesn't offer at least 48 ports of
> 10/100/1000, ssh, port mirroring or spanning sessions, snmp, unique
> spanning trees per vlan, and something like vrrp. It would be nice to
> have 802.3ad (I think that's the right one) capability
>
>
> A 3548 is only layer 2 anyway, i.e. ethernet switching, i.e. below
> IP... A model sometimes confused with the 3548 is the 3550-48, the
> 48x100M member of the 3550 series that replaced the 3500 series and as
> such the 3548, which does have layer 3 functionality in the EMI
> relea
2009/3/26 nate
> Luke S Crawford wrote:
> > Les Mikesell writes:
> >> If you get a service contract on any piece of Cisco equipment, you
> >> typically get download access to all of the firmware updates.
> >
> > Yeah, but the problem for me is that for my frontend network, 100M is
> just
> > fin
> look at HP Procurves. That is what I use.
> You can get 2524's quite cheap on ebay.
We used these for years, and they were great, and super cheap on EBay.
HP support was fantastic as well. The 26xx series allows for "light"
layer 3 routing; you may want to snag the 2626 or 2650 instead of t
Luke S Crawford wrote:
>
>> in a lot of scenarios there are several choices, each with a different
>> set of bugs that you won't know about unless you open a TAC case and
>> tell an engineer exactly what features have to work for you.
>
> Yeah, but at the used prices for 100M kit, I can buy two
Luke S Crawford wrote:
> Les Mikesell writes:
>> If you get a service contract on any piece of Cisco equipment, you
>> typically get download access to all of the firmware updates.
>
> Yeah, but the problem for me is that for my frontend network, 100M is just
> fine. A used cisco 3548 is going to
Les Mikesell writes:
> If you get a service contract on any piece of Cisco equipment, you
> typically get download access to all of the firmware updates.
Yeah, but the problem for me is that for my frontend network, 100M is just
fine. A used cisco 3548 is going to set me back around $200. Fo
Scott McClanahan wrote:
> I'm looking to acquire a few new core switches for our network which
> would be a major upgrade from the cheap unmanaged things we currently
> have. Basically, just users, servers, and other simple network devices
> will be plugged into them but I'd like to start doing so
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Luke S Crawford wrote:
>>
>>> i would like to see real performance data via something like netperf
>>> with client machines booted from a standardized LiveCD, then
>>> peformance under their Linux Distribution and performance under
>>> Windows
On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Luke S Crawford wrote:
>>
>>> i would like to see real performance data via something like netperf
>>> with client machines booted from a standardized LiveCD, then
>>> peformance under their Linux Distribution and performance under
>>> Windows.
>
Luke S Crawford wrote:
>
>> i would like to see real performance data via something like netperf
>> with client machines booted from a standardized LiveCD, then
>> peformance under their Linux Distribution and performance under
>> Windows.
>
>
> Performance data is not the most important metric,
Rob Townley writes:
> i would like to see real performance data via something like netperf
> with client machines booted from a standardized LiveCD, then
> peformance under their Linux Distribution and performance under
> Windows.
Performance data is not the most important metric, at least for
Rainer Duffner wrote:
>
>> i am often not very
>> impressed by network performance and need standardized benchmarks to
>> figure out if there may be an issue at the NIC driver, switch or on up
>> to a virus shield. It was either a ~2004 Dell Power magazine or
>> ~2004 Network World article that
Ross Walker wrote:
> Look there really are 3 tiers for network equipment. The first two
> tiers all give wire speed performance and have managed layer 2 and 3
> options. The last tier is for consumer home use.
>
> Tier 1 might have high-end Cisco, Juniper or Nortel (and others) that
> have mo
One thing to remember is that you usualy get what you paid for...
I found out the hard way when my boss pushed me to buy brand XYZ PowerC...
switches because they were a half the price of other brands/models.
It said "web-managed"... and it really meant web (only) managed (not even SSL
encrypted
dnk wrote:
> I had a reseller in here yesterday, and apparently the linksys (higher
> end) lines are being merged into the cisco lines. So the linksys gear
> will just be branded Cisco. I am not sure if this is all linksys gear,
> or just what they cal the higher end stuff. But I am trying to conf
Look there really are 3 tiers for network equipment. The first two
tiers all give wire speed performance and have managed layer 2 and 3
options. The last tier is for consumer home use.
Tier 1 might have high-end Cisco, Juniper or Nortel (and others) that
have modular enclosures redundant power s
Rob Townley wrote:
> i would not be surprised if most SOHO networks may not even have layer
> 2 manageablity.
> How do you know it isn't something to be concerned about unless you
> have data from various manufacturers and various NICs?
I don't deal with SOHO networks(outside of my own which only
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Rob Townley schrieb:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rainer Duffner
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Townley schrieb:
>>>
Every time i read these posts they are filled with contradictions in
that one person loves HP and hates CiscoLink
Rob Townley schrieb:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rainer Duffner
> wrote:
>
>> Rob Townley schrieb:
>>
>>> Every time i read these posts they are filled with contradictions in
>>> that one person loves HP and hates CiscoLinksys while another hates
>>> HP. Let's get a more scientif
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM, nate wrote:
> Rainer Duffner wrote:
>
>> Switch performance is extremely difficult to measure IMO. You need
>> enough clients to make sure you're not accidentally measuring
>> client-performance.
>
> There's also a lot more to switches than pure performance, line
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Rob Townley schrieb:
>>
>> Every time i read these posts they are filled with contradictions in
>> that one person loves HP and hates CiscoLinksys while another hates
>> HP. Let's get a more scientific approach. Switch performance still
>
Rainer Duffner wrote:
> Switch performance is extremely difficult to measure IMO. You need
> enough clients to make sure you're not accidentally measuring
> client-performance.
There's also a lot more to switches than pure performance, line
rate switches have been around for at least a decade(swi
> Tier 2 might have Dell Powerconnects and HP Procurves and Cisco 2000
> series products. These are good stable well performing products and
> are gobbled up in heaps by small and medium businesses. These are the
> usual choice for small enterprises and come in managed and unmanaged,
> lay
On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Christopher Chan
> wrote:
>>
>>> * vlans
>>> * mstp or some well established form of per vlan spanning tree
>>> * acl's
>>> * port mirroring or what cisco calls span sessions
>>> * snmp
>>> * ssh enabled remote m
Rob Townley schrieb:
>
> Every time i read these posts they are filled with contradictions in
> that one person loves HP and hates CiscoLinksys while another hates
> HP. Let's get a more scientific approach. Switch performance still
> depends on the NICS in the client machines.
Uhm. No. Not an
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Christopher Chan
wrote:
>
>> * vlans
>> * mstp or some well established form of per vlan spanning tree
>> * acl's
>> * port mirroring or what cisco calls span sessions
>> * snmp
>> * ssh enabled remote management
>> * support w/ updates and bugfixes
>>
>>
>> I need
> * vlans
> * mstp or some well established form of per vlan spanning tree
> * acl's
> * port mirroring or what cisco calls span sessions
> * snmp
> * ssh enabled remote management
> * support w/ updates and bugfixes
>
>
> I need at least 48 ports per device and obviously would like them to be
> "
Marko Mernik wrote:
> We use Extrem Networks x450 switches, see
>
> http://www.extremenetworks.com/products/summit-x450a.aspx
X450A is my favorite gigE switch as well, with ESRP you
can get layer 3 redundancy with layer 2 loop prevention in
a single protocol and don't need to have other switches
i
We use Extrem Networks x450 switches, see
http://www.extremenetworks.com/products/summit-x450a.aspx
Scott McClanahan pravi:
> I'm looking to acquire a few new core switches for our network which
> would be a major upgrade from the cheap unmanaged things we currently
> have. Basically, just users
Scott McClanahan wrote:
> I'm looking to acquire a few new core switches for our network which
> would be a major upgrade from the cheap unmanaged things we currently
> have. Basically, just users, servers, and other simple network devices
> will be plugged into them but I'd like to start doing so
Hi
I use a lot Nortel switches, 4548gt is working like a bomb a bit on the
expensive side but still really good.
Per
On 3/23/09 2:25 PM, "Scott McClanahan" wrote:
> I'm looking to acquire a few new core switches for our network which
> would be a major upgrade from the cheap unmanaged things
Scott McClanahan schrieb:
> I'm looking to acquire a few new core switches for our network which
>
HP procurve?
Or refurbished Cisco.
The HP procurve switches have a good reputation, though.
I'm not sure if they do everything on your list, though.
Rainer
I'm looking to acquire a few new core switches for our network which
would be a major upgrade from the cheap unmanaged things we currently
have. Basically, just users, servers, and other simple network devices
will be plugged into them but I'd like to start doing some testing with
iSCSI for variou
34 matches
Mail list logo
