HP Procurve 1810g v2 (version 2)?

[Blue Thunder]

Was thinking about buying a 1810g-24 but I've recently noticed that HP are listing a new model number (J9801A and J9803A), which they say is the v2 model.
The J9801A appears to be only a 10/100 switch, while the J9803A is a 10/100/1000 switch.

I haven't seen any threads/posts mentioning this - at least not from my searching. Anyone got one of them? Or compared them in-depth to the v1 model?

Sources:
v1 http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/e...67-4172281-4172281-3963985-3963987.html?dnr=1
v2 http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/e...67-4172281-4172281-3963985-5304944.html?dnr=1
1810g series http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/products/switches/HP_1810_Switch_Series/index.aspx




I've compared the 24 port v2 gigabit model (J9803A) to the 24 port v1 gigabit model (J9450A) using HP's specification sheet. The v2 has the following over the v1 model:
- Higher switching capacity (52 vs 48 Gbps). [v2 has 24 gigabit ports + two SFP ports. v1 only has 24 ports.]
- Half the weight (~1kg vs ~2kg). [Cheaper components? NetJunkie's explaination: v2 has lower power consumption = less heat generated, therefore smaller heatsinks are required which results in weight reduction]
- Much more ram (128MB vs 16MB). [more ram, good but can the device take advantage of it?].
- Reduced latancy (3 us vs 7us [@100mb], 2us vs 3us [@1000mb]). [doesn't seem that significant.]
- Increased throughput (38 million vs 35 million). [possibly significant.]
- Reduced current required for power (0.4/0.3A vs 0.7/0.4A).
- Reduced wattage (22W vs 30W). [better power efficency [Strike=Option]or just underpowered?[/s]]

[Strike=Option]Not sure about the warranty status for the v2 switches or if it includes anything new on the software side such as protocols. I remember something about the v1 switch not having the standard tree spanning protocol for loopback prevention yet it still prevented loopbacks (I'm assuming STP helps prevent loopbacks).[/s] v1's don't have STP but do have some sort of loop protection as HP's 1810g-v1 FAQ reveals (relevent section quoted below). But I'm not convinced these things are needed in a home networking environment.

Q: Does the ProCurve Switch 1810G series support Spanning Tree Protocols (STP)?
A: No, the ProCurve Switch 1810G Series does not support any of the Spanning Tree Protocols (802.1s, 802.1D, or 802.1w). However, BPDU packets are still passed.


Q: What is the difference between STP and Loop Protection?
A: The ProCurve 1810GG switch software is equipped with an automatic Loop Protection feature. Loop Protection is enabled and disabled globally and on a port-by-port basis. When enabled globally, the software sends loop protection packets to a reserved layer 2 multicast destination address on all the ports on which the feature is enabled. Transmission of the packet can be disabled selectively on certain ports, even when Loop Protection is enabled.

If this multicast packet comes back to the switch with any of the ports’ MAC addresses as the source, the switch determines that a loop has occurred. The port that received the loop protection packet from the switch can be shut down for a configurable period, and a log entry can be made. Ports on which Loop Protection is disabled drop the loop protection packets silently.

Source: HP 1810g-v1 FAQ http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...odSeriesId=3963985&prodTypeId=12883#traffic-1




EDIT: v2 seems to have standardised protocol support for power saving, loop protection and packet prioritisation functions. It also has a lifetime warranty, like the v1 models.
Source: 1810g series quickspecs http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13447_div/13447_div.HTML
Other forum discussing the 1810g-v2: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1992811

Newly offered are units designated "Version 2" (v2) with features including the latest energy-saving capabilities – Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) and idle-port power down – as well as Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP) and DSCP QoS policies. All come with a lifetime warranty.

- NEW IEEE 802.1p prioritization with DSCP (v2 models) switch delivers data to devices based on the priority and type of traffic using Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP).
- NEW IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) and 802.1W Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP) (v2 models) provides redundant links while preventing network loops.
- NEW Energy savings (v2 models) utilizes Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) IEEE 802.3az standard for lower power consumption.

Equivalent functions, sometimes non-standardised, were provided in v1 models:

- Traffic prioritization (IEEE 802.1p) allows real-time traffic classification with eight priority levels mapped to four queues. [802.1p support but no DSCP, compared to v2 models which do].
- [my own commentary] v1 models don't have STP support but have loop protection, as shown in the HP 1810g-v1 FAQ, above. [No 802.1D or 802.1W support, compared to v2 models which do]
- Green IT and power automatically places inactive ports in low power mode and its LED in power down mode to conserve energy. [No 802.3az support, compared to v2 models which do].

All in all, the v2 models do seem like an improvement over the v1's. However one thing that keeps bugging me is the reduction in weight - I'd like to know how reliable these are compared to the v1 model. Also is support for DSCP within 802.1p, 802.1D, 802.1W and 802.3az protocols really needed in a "home use" situation? (maybe 802.3az does).

----------
----------


Another question I had was that I've seen retailers selling v1's with the #ABA model number prefix for less than ones lacking this prefix - e.g. J9450A#ABA cheaper than J9450A.
Anyone know why? It is some sort of retailer or promotion specific code?

Maybe with the release of v2, the v1s might drop in price.

 

[Evil_SPanKY]

Not 100% sure in this case, but generally with HP the #ABA suffix signifies "retail" type boxed products in my experience, at least with respect to server/desktop/laptop level parts.

 

[Blue Thunder]

Ah, if that is the case then I find it unusual that the #ABA ones are cheaper. I actually expected them to be 'OEM' type packages that lacked accessories (such as the rack mounting kit or power cables).

Unless the non-#ABA ones come with higher level support?

 

[Evil_SPanKY]

Maybe I have it backwards then, and that is a channel parts and not retail.

I just looked at a DL380 G8 BTO server quote, and none of the HP parts listed contain the #ABA string.

I can email my HP vender and ask this for you, he is usaslly pretty quick to answer back.

DOH - Just got his out of office/sick response. His partner may answer back, but that will be much slower. I will post back when I do get an answer for you.

 

[NetJunkie]

Most likely the reduction in weight is due to reduction in heat sinks thanks to lower power consumption.

 

[Blue Thunder]

I can email my HP vender and ask this for you, he is usaslly pretty quick to answer back.

DOH - Just got his out of office/sick response. His partner may answer back, but that will be much slower. I will post back when I do get an answer for you.

Thanks very much for checking that out for me.

Most likely the reduction in weight is due to reduction in heat sinks thanks to lower power consumption.

Ack, never thought of that. I spose I've assumed that reducing power consumption by 1/3rd wouldn't mean that the mass of heatsinks required would be halved - but they probably just use more efficent heatsinks/my thinking is incorrect.

Also I've got it in my head that companies only do hardware revisions to cut costs (e.g. switch to an equivalent component/process that costs less) which likely isn't true in every/this instance.

 

[Evil_SPanKY]

My Vendor just called me and said generally the "#ABA" = US localization kit. So US manuals, US based power cables, etc...

He is going to look at your specific part #'s to be sure, but he said thats usually what it signifies.

 

[Blue Thunder]

That kinda makes sense. I've actually only seen one place list both models (NextWarehouse) with a $35 premium for the non-#ABA. Generally US stores list the part as J9450A#ABA (e.g. Amazon, NewEgg), while Aussie stores list it as J9450A.

 

[obrith]

I have lots of the v1's in use and like them. I just ordered a few v2's and v1's as they're cheaper and the v1's are going away... I'm not super keen on them really, but am giving them a try. The new ones are 3com switches is my main issue. Not known for their quality.

And more ram is often not good on a switch - You usually want a small buffer (though in some cases like storage fabric that may not be true).

In a few weeks I can tell you if they're total crap

 

[haunter]

the only reason I didnt deploy the v1's I got was because I needed actual STP not just loop protection so I had to move up to the 1910's

I have a slew of the A5120's and a few of the 1910's which are '3com' ComWare's, and they have been great. 3com got ALOT better in the ramp up to being bought

 

[Blue Thunder]

The new ones are 3com switches is my main issue. Not known for their quality.

And more ram is often not good on a switch - You usually want a small buffer (though in some cases like storage fabric that may not be true).

Weird. I've heard that the 1910's are rebranded 3com's and that the 1810v1's were HP's own design. For the v2's I assumed they would've taken the v1 base and just modded it. Why would they use a 3com? Maybe the 3com's were more easy to modify/modernise to suit the v2's purpose?

More ram = bad?! Oh, well in any case the "packet buffer size" is the same for both the v1 and v2 (512kb), as it is ROM size (8mb). I assumed the ram would be used to run the router's OS. A larger ram size might mean more features can be supported (maybe that's why STP, 802.3az, etc. are now included - or maybe they were included to make the v2 competitive - still not sure why the rom size wasn't upgraded as one would assume more features would require it).

the only reason I didnt deploy the v1's I got was because I needed actual STP not just loop protection so I had to move up to the 1910's

Had a quick look into STP. I asusme you had a number of redundant network paths? So HP's simple loopback won't work there because it only works locally w.r.t. the switch?
Anyone able to explain what purpose of/advantages are of the newly supported protocols? (actually I'll go wiki/google them now).


802.1p with DSCP [packet prioritisation via Differentiated Services Code Point].
- Class of Service (CoS) mechanism operating at the MAC address level (layer 2 of the OSI model). Is actually part of 802.1Q (VLANs)? All devices must be 802.1p compatible otherwise weird things can happen. The DSCP part works on layer 3 of the OSI model (and so it's called a Quality of Service mechanism). Apparently you map 802.1p to DSCP which overrides/takes over at the layer 3 boundry...?
Source: Microsoft http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wndp/archive/2006/01/18/514533.aspx
pjsip http://trac.pjsip.org/repos/wiki/QoS
HP http://www.hp.com/rnd/device_help/h...CurveJ4819A/conf/qualityofservice/qosdscp.htm


802.1D [Spanning Tree Protocol] and 802.1W [Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol].
- Detects redundant network paths and blocks them to prevent switching/bridge loops. If the primary path goes down, a redundant path is activated. RSTP - as the name suggests - does it quicker so that changes to the network topology (such as those caused by equipment failure) are detected much faster.
Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_tree_protocol

802.3az [Energy Efficient Ethernet].
- Allows ethernet ports to enter sleep/low power mode by detecting if the link is active. Output power is changed depending on the length of the cable used, instead of the default maximum power (100 meter cable).
Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Efficient_Ethernet



802.3az looks like it'd be useful for everyone. 802.1D/W might be useful for some home users especially since creating redundant links is easy. For me, 802.1p/DSCP wouldn't be that useful and might even cause problems with old equipment.


--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

EDIT: Decided to purchase an 1810-8 port v2. I wanted to go for the 24 port model because of it's rackmountability (included hardware) and built-in PSU, but I couldn't never see myself using more than half those ports. A 16 port model would've suited me but I'd have to go for the 1910-16 which costs the same as the 1810-24 so decided it wasn't worth it.

The 8-port is 'half width' rackmountable so by using a shelf I could rackmount it (but I'd have to buy that myself ). Might work out if I decided to put other bits and pieces like a cheap KVM switch there. Or perhaps placing two 1810-8's next to each other to expand capacity in the future.

Oh, also found this page giving some thoughts on the 1810g-8 port v1 model. Some of those issues should have been resolved with the newer model: http://libertysys.com.au/node/61


============================================================
============================================================

So it's been about 3 months since I purchased three 1810g-8v2's and they've all been going strong. Haven't really got any issues but then again I'm not doing anything advanced so I bet any old cheap switch would've worked fine too.

In a relatively enclosed space they can get a bit warm, though not as warm as my modem, so I'm glad the newer models use less power.

 

[zgamer]

Ended up running across this post while searching for information on the 1810-24g versions

Some more details based upon further digging

The extra weight (1.78lb) on the v1 is mostly attributed to the larger case form factor which is (17.42 x 6.74 x 1.73) vs v2 is (12.99 x 6.81 x 1.73).

The ram change isn't as big of a deal as you may think. The extra ram is likely being used specifically for handling the STP/RSTP and DSCP tables.

The v1's run a stripped down version of ProVision while the v2's OS is unknown, likely ProVision as the 1900's being ComWare based provide a clear separation.

The 8 watt power consumption difference is with all ports active. The v2 is more efficient yes, also considering you are effectively adding an additional pair of copper ports as well when fully loaded. Where you are seeing the majority of the savings when looking at everything would be (educated guess) from a die shrink on some of the chips being used. Because of the die shrink I would conjecture a slightly higher clock processor and DRAM giving way to increased throughput and switching capacity.

v1 has 22 copper ports + 2 either copper or SFP
v2 has 24 copper ports + 2 SFP

The energy efficiency (802.3az) feature is nice on paper but when the rubber hits the road I'm seeing a power savings of 1.2 watts (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/col...iercom_report_smb_switch_comparison.pdf)...if it's Cisco mud then let me look back at the QuickSpecs and past ProCurve switches. On the 2500/2800 series watts went up when ports went live, so power was already being throttled. The QuickSpec lists that "802.3az reduces power consumption when connected with EEE-compliant client devices" which does not throttle other components (higher end switches reduce switch fabric and fan wattage), the net savings is generally pretty minimal.

I haven't seen many small offices uses DSCP, generally in the past I've used DSCP to force Avaya VOIP phones to a higher QoS setting within an enterprise environment in which the 8-port POE would be the only fit.

STP and RSTP can be a deal breaker depending on the install, if you have a really small install with just a single switch at a site then Loop Protect would cover you but when using multiple switches STP/RSTP can provide a big headache.


Overall the v2 is a nice update offering nice updates for a few specific use cases
1) smaller form factor (when not rack-mounted)
2) two extra ports when the SFP's are used
3) STP/RSTP for larger environments

 

[diizzy]

Haven't tried 1810v2 but the 1810v1 is pretty bad in my opinion, it works fine but the webui is slow and clunky. In that regard the 1910s are a lot better despire being 3Coms. I recently bought a Zyxel GS1910 and at least for now I have to say that I feels like a much better buy than the 1810(v1 at least) by HP. The interface is fast and clean, some functions are named different but overall its much nicer to admin.

//Danne

 

[sybreeder]

Haven't tried 1810v2 but the 1810v1 is pretty bad in my opinion, it works fine but the webui is slow and clunky. In that regard the 1910s are a lot better despire being 3Coms. I recently bought a Zyxel GS1910 and at least for now I have to say that I feels like a much better buy than the 1810(v1 at least) by HP. The interface is fast and clean, some functions are named different but overall its much nicer to admin.

//Danne

I Also have Zyxel GS1910 and i've difficulty to create a vlan trunk. On HP 1910 i can create trunk that contains couple different vlans and i'm not sure that i can do the same thing on Zyxel I saw that i can only create tagged port with single vlan. Is this even possible on that switch? . And lacp of course. Nothing more than that. Mine is 24port version with 4 SFP.

 

[diizzy]

Huh?
Configuration --> VLANs --> VLAN Membership
Just create more VLANs and add to the ports

Firmware: V1.00(AAAX.3)
//Danne

 

[sybreeder]

Ok so i'll test if when i go back home. I wanted to connect Zyxel Switch to HP 5500 swithch through trunk but without any success. I have couple vlans but i didn't find way to put many of those vlans to 1 single port.
This is how it looks on zyxel :

This is how it looks on HP 5120

I don't see any option to change link type to trunk on zyxel. And on manual i haven't saw any info if i can put many vlans to the 1 single port. I've seen that i can only tag a port.

Here is is scan from Zyxel GS3700 Manual

I see there vlan trunking option so it seems that GS1910 just doesn't have that functionality and doesn't support it.

 

[obrith]

Since the thread was ressurected, I have one more comment about the 1810's;

They are garbage if you want to collect SNMP data. We started collecting a lot more with Nagios (port speeds, traffic metrics) and it brings their management interface to it's knees. We're going to have to replace them as edge switching and move them to engineering desk-side only. We already disliked that we can't pull MAC tables from them, but the crap handling of SNMP puts them over the top.