Is Gigabit without a switch worth it?

Q

quasimodem

Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
516
Would buying multiple gigabit NIC's and using crossover cables be worth it in my home network, or is there such a thing as an inexpensive gigabit switch?

I'm thinking the overhead of running dual networks (switched 100 and crossover 1000) would be too much hassle.

QM
 
Except for "just because", there's no reason to have gigabit in a home environment. What you're describing is just a whole lot of hassle, though technically feasible.
 
It's not worth it. The overhead on Gbit ethernet is already horrible, unless jumbo packets are used. It's not going to gain much speed at all over 100Mbps ethernet anyways, so save your cash for now.
 
Define inexpensive. You can get an 8 port gigabit switch for less than $100 and a 5 port for less than $75. As for running a mixed network, I'm doing exactly that at home. PCs have 100 mbit connection to the router, but 2 are wired directly to each other using gigabit. Works great for transferring large amounts of data between the two, and I can burn DVDs/CDs between the two without buffer underrun problem, which I used to get occasionaly when burning over 100mbit.

Also, all the gigabit cards I've used are auto-mdix, so I didn't need to use crossover cables when connecting directly to each other. I'm not sure if all gigabit cards support this, but it's something to look for.

For max transfer speeds, I usually see around 25% of max speed, or around 250 mbit.
 
Yes, worth it if you do a lot of surfing, but don't buy it *just* for gigabit, get a big cache.

Even the most inexpensive gigabit switches come with 1MB of cache memory. Which means that if you do a lot of *back button* surfing its nearly instantaneous going to the previous page (faster than a harddive access, and much faster than reloading from the internet)

But then again, A also have a Cisco 3200 (24-10Mbit ports) with 8MB of RAM, which caches even further behind.
 
JBark said:
Define inexpensive. You can get an 8 port gigabit switch for less than $100 and a 5 port for less than $75.
Click to expand...

That's a lot better prices then I was seeing on pricewatch when i searched for gigabit.

the cheapest was like $399. I'm only wanting to connect my main pc to my file server since I mostly move DVD and ISOs between the two.

I'll have to check into the smart cards.

thanx.

QM
 
You should be able to find a 5 or 8 port gigabit from Dell, SMC or Netgear for about $100.

I got my 8-port Netgear gigabit about 6 months ago for $140 Cdn.... They are not expensive.
 
I think it is worth it if you transfer a lot of files.....I can transfer 20gb in 2-3 minutes and my CPU Processes is only like 45%...I love jumbo packets.....I bought the 8 port SMC with jumbo packets from NewEgg for $100...
 
You could also use GB crossover if you had two servers acting as a cluster. Use the GB for the connection between them, and the 100MB nics for the connection to the clients.
 
ianshot said:
You could also use GB crossover if you had two servers acting as a cluster. Use the GB for the connection between them, and the 100MB nics for the connection to the clients.
Click to expand...
Gigabit is always auto xover if I remember right. I've always wondered why all 100mbit wasnt, though I have a few things that are auto xover (SMC switch at home, 3coms at old workplace).
 
ZenOps said:
Yes, worth it if you do a lot of surfing, but don't buy it *just* for gigabit, get a big cache.

Even the most inexpensive gigabit switches come with 1MB of cache memory. Which means that if you do a lot of *back button* surfing its nearly instantaneous going to the previous page (faster than a harddive access, and much faster than reloading from the internet)
Click to expand...

Surfing? Do you mean web surfing? The fastest Cable or DSL tops out at 5Mbit... so would a 1000Mbit switch really speed up web surfing?

I can understand upgrading to a Gbit network to send large files across your home network... but it's not gonna affect your broadband bandwidth.

And the back-button theory... I find it hard to believe that cache on a switch would be faster than the computer. Hard drives are slow, but it's local and on the computer. I have a 3Mbit cable connection, and a slow as hell computer... but my back button only takes a few milliseconds to go back.
 
You would be surprised how fast a switch cache can speed up surfing. But don't trust me, borrow a gigabit switch and see for yourself. You don't even need to have a gigabit card in the client computer.

Harddrive acesses are much slower than people know. You average webpage might have a few dozen to a few hundred images, html code and cookies. The *old* way of harddrive acesses would store them in their raw .gif or .jpg format, which was very slow because if fragmented could take several milliseconds to find each cached image, html page and cookie (especially if you have an older harddrive with less than 2MB cache). The *new* way of doing is many webpages are smushed together into one huge temporary cache file compressed directory, which has lower access times and lower read times.

HTML 1.1 will let you *reuse* images. It will ask the server if anything has changed, and if nothing has, it will not bother to re-download anything. HTML 1.0 does not, and a router or switch with a large cache is a godsend in that situation.

Admittedly though, if you have a newer 8 or 16MB cache harddrive, the difference would not be as noticable. It does not lessen the importance of a cache though, wherever it is. I'd like to someday see a consumer level memory upgradeable 256MB switch. < Request to ethernet people sent!
 
1GB is overkill in your house unless you have an OC3 or bigger sized pipe to the world or if you are streaming video to your neighborhood . We just put in GIG-E copper for our servers for fast back ups of servers. Now we have a 2GB switch fabric between our Adic Scalar 1000, and our SAN, and GIG over fiber to and from our Cat 4507's.
 
IceWind said:
Since when did switches store cached web pages, i've never heard of such a thing :confused:
Click to expand...

I haven’t either.

When you click the back button chances are the content of the website is still in the ram, if it isn’t then the computer is suffering from file swapping and will be slowed until it finished.

If you’re on about re-visiting web pages, the html is still downloaded from the server. The files are then requested with a date stamp and only the newer files are downloaded. The rest are loaded from cache (no need to download again).Unless you use a proxy (which is a little bit different.

That’s my basic understanding of http (i can go into it in more detail). Zenops please tell me how a flashy network switch can improve this process?
 
I believe there are layer 4 switches that will transparently redirect to a cache engine, tho I'm not too familiar with that. I guess similar to proxy servers, but the user does not need to setup anything up? Don't know of any combined switch/cache devices, or any soho level devices.
 
ZenOps said:
You would be surprised how fast a switch cache can speed up surfing. But don't trust me, borrow a gigabit switch and see for yourself. You don't even need to have a gigabit card in the client computer.
Click to expand...

Please tell me exactly how a Layer 2 gigabit switch knows anything at all about caching anything that operates at Layer 7 (i.e. HTTP).

It doesnt.

There are a couple different uses for memory in a switch, but none do what you say. There is memory that holds the MAC Address Table, and there is a data buffer. The MAC address table does nothing more than hold the table of which MAC addresses are located on which port. Buffers are used as a temporary holding place for incoming data before it's sent out to it's destination. If you have a higher-end switch that supports mulitple switching methods, and you select Store-And-Forward switching, the packet will enter the switch and be put into memory until the entire packet is recieved, as opposed to beginning to forward the packet as it comes in.

In order to do what you're talking about, a device would have to be made specifically to do this and would be VERY expensive. It would operate almost like a proxy server, watching requests and re-writing packets as necessary. I guarantee that having a proxy server integrated into a switch wouldn't be very promising on the small scale of a home network. And you can also bet that some $100 Linksys Gigabit switch doesnt have anything remotely close to this capability.

In effect, I'd go examine your network a little more to find out what else you did to speed if up cuz I guarantee ur Linksys isnt caching webpages.
 
Caches packets... All layers really, honestly I have a Cisco 3200 here (24 port 10 mbit/ 2 100 mbit) when you hook it up to only one computer you can set the entire 8MB to cache packets from only one or two ports (for use with one computer)

In that case, its honestly a lot faster than most gigabit switches when hooked up to a DSL/Cable type situation. Size of cache matters. HTTP 1.0 requests need to be verfied over the internet, HTTP can be cached locally (in the harddrive/memory subsystem) more information.

Layers 1-7 really have nothing to do with it if the html itself never calls out to the internet.

Please, people *try it* before you disbelieve. Size of cache makes a huge difference for network interface cards too if you run server applications (most server network cards have at least 128 to 256KB to cache outgoing packets and multiple concurrencies or queued requests IE BITORRENT.) Severely overlooked technology IMO. Is the extra $100 worth it for the server network card with the extra cache? Not for 90 percent of users, but I'd be willing to say that the extra cache in most gigabit switches is worth it for the tiny amount of extra price you pay over a 10/100.
 
I have noticed a increase in speed in my downloads....Prob because of a bigger cache like zenops says....But I mostly did it for the transfer speed between computers.....Come on 20gb in 3 minutes....My old 10/100 switch use to take 15-20 minutes...
 
JBark said:
As for running a mixed network, I'm doing exactly that at home. PCs have 100 mbit connection to the router, but 2 are wired directly to each other using gigabit. Works great for transferring large amounts of data between the two, and I can burn DVDs/CDs between the two without buffer underrun problem, which I used to get occasionaly when burning over 100mbit.
Click to expand...

Mine is setup the same way. I transfer files from the internet download machine to the fileserver. I get almost 100% speed increase, 8MB/Sec on 10/100 and 15MB/Sec on the GigE.
 
darktiger said:
I have noticed a increase in speed in my downloads....Prob because of a bigger cache like zenops says....But I mostly did it for the transfer speed between computers.....Come on 20gb in 3 minutes....My old 10/100 switch use to take 15-20 minutes...
Click to expand...


There is NO way that a gig switch/nic will increase you d/l speeds. Think about it.. even if you have 6MB DSL/cable your only getting 6MB to the modem then 10MB or 100MB from the modem to the switch THEN gig from the switch to your PC... so the bottleneck starts at the service speed (6MB DSL/cable) then continues through to the modem (10MB or 100MBs) then hits the switch 1000GB. So you only get true gig from PC to PC not PC to internet.
 
ZenOps said:
Caches packets... All layers really, honestly I have a Cisco 3200 here (24 port 10 mbit/ 2 100 mbit) when you hook it up to only one computer you can set the entire 8MB to cache packets from only one or two ports (for use with one computer)

In that case, its honestly a lot faster than most gigabit switches when hooked up to a DSL/Cable type situation. Size of cache matters. HTTP 1.0 requests need to be verfied over the internet, HTTP can be cached locally (in the harddrive/memory subsystem) more information.

Layers 1-7 really have nothing to do with it if the html itself never calls out to the internet.

Please, people *try it* before you disbelieve. Size of cache makes a huge difference for network interface cards too if you run server applications (most server network cards have at least 128 to 256KB to cache outgoing packets and multiple concurrencies or queued requests IE BITORRENT.) Severely overlooked technology IMO. Is the extra $100 worth it for the server network card with the extra cache? Not for 90 percent of users, but I'd be willing to say that the extra cache in most gigabit switches is worth it for the tiny amount of extra price you pay over a 10/100.
Click to expand...


Dood Nybbles is right. I have worked on Cisco gear for 3+ years and there is no way of setting the built in DRAM for this use. It is used for QOS, priority queues, it is where config changes are written until saved to flash, etc. Not for caching - that is what a proxy server does like a the MS ISA server.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top