Jan,
My two cents on one vs. two: Bruce is correct that two switches provide fallback, assuming you can do with the 24 ports if one switch dies. On the other hand, unless you start paying some pretty good bucks, the speed between the switches isn't going to be full backplane that you'll get in a single switch. (You can do this with Ciscos without using ports.) And given that good Ciscos will disable a single port if it is faulty, you still have a lot of redundancy. A 48-port device is certainly going to be cheaper than a pair of 24-port devices. A further recommendation is to buy the Cisco with a good service/support contract with a short response time so that if a single switch does go down you have a replacement in short order. All of this of course depends on how critical the environment might be. It wouldn't make sense to put a high-end Cisco in a small environment where the bulk of the work is done in word processing and/or spreadsheets; here uptime is not critical. On the other hand, you won't find an office with people who trade stocks in real time that doesn't have a world-class network infrastructure since downtime to them can mean big bucks. Emmitt Dove Converting Systems Architect Evergreen Packaging, Inc. [email protected] (203) 214-5683 m (203) 643-8022 o (203) 643-8086 f [email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 14:23 To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Gigabit switch I use Dell powerconnect switches. They are better than the dlink or netgears and much easier to configure than the ciscos. They come unmanaged by default but you can manage them as well. One switch is better than two. Less power usage and less space. From: jan johansen <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:51 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [RBASE-L] - Gigabit switch Anyone got any recommendations for a 48 port 1GPS network switch? Or 2 24 port stackables? Jan
