Cisco vs HP Switches

H

HDClown

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
222
I am working on a budget for a company I consult for and a complete switching upgrade needs to occur. The current environment is a mix of Cisco Catalyst Express 500's plus entry level 3Com and HP ProCurve switches.

I'm a Cisco guy, so that's how I'd like to go, but some of the guys onsite on HP ProCurve fans. I'm fine with either brand, as long as I get the features needed.

Switch needs are split out as follows. I've listed the Cisco products I would use:
5 x 48 port 10/100 PoE end-user switches - WS-C2960-48PST-L (LAN Base image)
1 x 24 port 10/100 PoE end-user switch - WS-C2960-24PC-L (LAN Base image)
1 x 24 port GigE PoE end-user switch - WS-C3560G-24PS-S (standard image)
2 x 24 port GigE server switches - WS-C3560G-24PS-S (standard image) -OR- possibly a single WS-C4948-S (standard image) w/redundant PSU

All switches need a minimum of 2 SFP's for SX fiber links. All switches need to support for QoS for a VoIP phone system. All switches must suport 802.1Q VLAN tagging and port trunking. L3 is not required at the switch level, but since I will be doing VLAN's,I need to route those, and this would be done on a Cisco 2900 series router. The end-user switches need to be able to support a voice and data VLAN on the same port.

I have spec'd out 10/100 for most of the end-users because there is nothing oing on in the environment where GigE for all users would show any benefits to the user. However, if I can get the features I need from an HP switch and get GigE for the end-users, please let me know, as it will be a factor of the decision.

On the server front, it's a full VMware environment, 4 hosts with 8 GigE NIC's (only 6 expected to be in-use for console/vmkernel tasks/VM networks) and 2 iSCSI HBA's. I will be talking to either an HP P4000 G2 (LeftHand) or a NetApp FAS2020 over iSCSI.

So, what I need to know is what from HP compared to these models on a feature-for-feature (as close as possible) bassis. Then I need to know if I can get "more for my money" with HP or not by going up to a higher feature switch for the same money as the Cisco products spec'd out.

For reference, I've talked with CDW (the companies VAR) and they have advised 2610's for 10/100, 2810 for GigE end-user switches and a 5406ZL for the servers. But I need more opnions on the matter.
 
I work for a place that is always on a budget and i use HP's switches for about everything

5412zl is their blade switch setup you can get a started kit for about 10k from cdw and that comes with 96 10/100/1000 poe ports

you can also look at the 2520 series for 10/100 poe ports or gig poe ports.

all the switches you named can have multple vlans on the same port. if you don't need layer 3 routing from the switches i would stay away from the 2800 series, 2500 and 2600 should give you all you need for your servers you can get them in gig or 10/100.

no vtp on these guys so i would suggest doing a 5412zl instead of the 5 48 port switches unless their going in seperate physical locations.
 
I manage a 5412zl where i work and the thing is rock solid. Procurve support and warranty are great!
 
The environment is split into the data center/MDF and 3 IDF closets.

The datacenter is in building #1 and needs 3x48 ports for end-users, plus the servers (2x24 or 48 as of now)

The 3 IDF's are spread across building #2. The buildings are connected via SX fiber.

So I simply can't stack everything into one chassis.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to manage VLAN's in the IDF switches separate from the data center switches, but I need to be able to have the same VLAN's across all switches across all closets,

Why do you suggest avoiding the 2800's?
 
We went with the HP Procurves when we rolled out our VoIP network. 5 domestic locations in the US. The two large sites each have a 5412zl, one with 96 ports, and one with 144 ports. I need an additional blade in each. Smaller sites have a HP Procurve 2910, all are PoE. We have two three VLANs, Management VLAN, Data VLAN, and Voice VLAN. At least so far.

The HPs are rock solid, work great and we have had no issues at all with them. They are also around 2/3rds to 1/2 the cost of the Cisco equivalents. The maintenance agreements are cheaper with the HP than the Cisco also.
 
the only reasn i said to avoid a 2800 is that i'm pretty sure the main benefit you'll get from them is layer 3 routing and you said you didn't need that at the switch level.

If you want to pay extra for those features and not use them then it will work just fine. there maybe some other benefits to the switch as well.

after using hp switches as a budget requirement if i ever go anywhere i'll still choice hp over cisco unless i have a specific requirement that only cisco can meet.
 
Been familiarzing myself with the HP product line more.

Come up with something like the following:
5406zl-4G-PoE+ bundle for the servers. This gets 24 port GigE + 20 port GigE w/4 SFP for servers and redundant PSU. The rest of the chassis would be empty.

I would then use 5 2610-48 PWR's and 1 2910AL-24G-PoE+ for end use switching.

This would be about $9000 saving's over the Cisco products I quoted. I'd be getting a "better" product for the servers by having a more expandable at capable blade chassis. My end-user switches would be a "lesser" products compared to the Cisco stuff.

I could also do the 5406zl-4G-PoE+ and 6 of the 5400zL GigE PoE modules, and only do 3 of the 2610-48 PWR's instead. That makes the savings a little less at about $7000. This would leave no expansion in the 5400 which isn't a good idea, so bumping to the 5412zL cuts into the savings even more.

I can save a few extra thousand by using a bunch of 2520-24-PoE's instead of the 2610-48 PoE's. It means more switches because ther eis no 48 port 2520), but it means dollars saved and some extra redundancy in the event of a switch failing. Loosing 24 ports is better than 48. I have to look more in features to determine if I can get by with the 2520, considering that the 2610 is a "better" switch and still only compares to the Cisco 2960 LAN Lite image, where I was targeting LAN Base.

yearly support costs are less with HP, so that makes TCO even better with HP.

If I dropped the 5400 and used something like 6600-24G's for the servers, that makes things even cheaper, and should be more comparative on the server switch to the Cisco 3560G. CDW recommended the 5400 though, and not the 6600's. Not sure why, I'll have to inquire.

Either way, HP is certainly cheaper, no doubt abut that. Feedback all around seems positive, so I think what it will really come down to is feature-sets of the targetted HP switches vs Cisco as well as familiarity of use in the environment. The guys on-site like ProCurve, but don't really USE ProCurve. I'm a heavy Cisco user, and I'll be doing long-term consulting with these guys, so I'm available to help them maintain and operate (and train) on the Cisco stuff.

I assume it would be pretty easy for me to pick-up and learn how to do stuff the "HP ProCurve" way, given that I'm a Cisco guy?
 
cli is very similar to cisco's. not as nice as ciscos but you can get used to it for the price difference. but if you know what you're doing it's not hard to figure out the differences.

just a note from experience
vlans from cli are lil rough on typing amount but you can also type menu and do it from menu driven options and it's easier and to configure ports for vlans and all that without having to type it all out. (don't get me wrong i'm all about cli but you'll see what i'm talking about)
 
cheaper, lifetime warranty, and lifetime firmware updates, why would you not go HP? lol
 
FLECOM said:
cheaper, lifetime warranty, and lifetime firmware updates, why would you not go HP? lol
Click to expand...

lack of features is the one think that I am stil cautious about HP. I know HP has a history of holding back and adding features as they go, but there is no guarantee any given switch will get the features you may need.

Do I need the features in question today? No. Will I need them in a few years, possibly. My entire infrastructure refresh covers almost $500,000 so saving $10,000 is only 2%, which is tiny. And the savings between the 2 brands may be even less. I won't know until i finalize the HP configuration.

Yes, I'm aware I will need SMARTnet to maintain warranty and firmware on the Cisco gear, but I can do so at a farily minimal yearly recurring cost of around $1500, which happens to work out to be only about 2% of the total yearly recurring costs.

I like to plan for all possibilities (within reason), and given my past experience, I know that some of the HP gear simply cannot do some things that might come up in the future. And that's without me really getting down into the complete feature set. Yes, I'm talking in "mights" and "what if's", but that's what you need to do when you are choosing equipment. At the end of the day, it's not my money, and I am presenting options where possible, so I will educate the decision makers and let them decide what route to go.
 
FLECOM said:
cheaper, lifetime warranty, and lifetime firmware updates, why would you not go HP? lol
Click to expand...

Cisco is a network innovator not just a hardware maker that is slapping standardized protocols into little blue and silver boxes.

Cisco's support is leaps and bounds better than HP's

Cisco's products will generally scale better, outperform, and are considerably more robust than anything made by HP.

In the world of large-scale networks there really is no comparison. If you just need a few switches to tie together a couple of floors in a building Procurve is just fine. But if you have complicated needs that constantly evolve, I'd rather not limit myself in order to save pennies on the dollar.
 
If your port counts are close to 24 or 48, be sure to look at how many ports you are actually getting, especially on the gigabit switches -- 24 ports sometimes means 24 ports including the SFP ports. This would be potentially a big bummer if you were replacing 24 or 48 10/100 ports, as you wouldn't have room left for your uplink.

You might also check into powered PoE midspans from powerdsine for the gigabit PoE, since it wasn't readily available from Procurve last I checked.
 
mattjw916 said:
Cisco is a network innovator not just a hardware maker that is slapping standardized protocols into little blue and silver boxes.

Cisco's support is leaps and bounds better than HP's

Cisco's products will generally scale better, outperform, and are considerably more robust than anything made by HP.

In the world of large-scale networks there really is no comparison. If you just need a few switches to tie together a couple of floors in a building Procurve is just fine. But if you have complicated needs that constantly evolve, I'd rather not limit myself in order to save pennies on the dollar.
Click to expand...

yep because I know nothing about large scale networking ;)

anyway in our DC we use extreme networks switches anyway

but for office buildings and stuff HP equipment will be just fine, which is where most network equipment ends up anyway... and its also what the OP is asking about... end-user switches...
 
HDClown said:
lack of features is the one think that I am stil cautious about HP.
Click to expand...

This is the only question you have to answer for yourself. Compared to HP, Extreme, Foundry, etc. most companies offer better hardware performance than Cisco. Where Cisco kills them is the software features. If you don't need all those features, then get the HP!
 
Being able to mirror all ports rather than just one or two is a big reason why we use Cisco equipment. That and the fact that our customers use them.
 
Also to throw out another reason to go with Cisco is their very diverse product lines. I can't think of any company that does just about everything with a nearly standardized command-line interface whether it be load-balancers, firewalls, switches, routers, wireless etc... Once you understand how IOS works it's very easy to adapt that knowledge to their other product offerings so the learning curve is a lot less steep.

I've used Marconi, Juniper, and HP equipment over the years as well and also had customers that had Foundry and Extreme equipment but just about everywhere Cisco owned the core and more often than not the high-end edge routers as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top