Managed vs. unmanaged switches

[Chip Thomas]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a managed switch over
an unmanaged switch and vice versa?

I'm trying to build a very robust network for home / small business use.
I'm not worried about managing a switch, just interested in
understanding why one would want a managed switch.

TIA,

Chip

 

[Spin]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a managed switch over
an unmanaged switch and vice versa?

I'm trying to build a very robust network for home / small business use.
I'm not worried about managing a switch, just interested in understanding
why one would want a managed switch.

In my view, not saying this is 100% correct, managed switches are for large
enterprise networks which have a service level agreement in place between
the user community and the IT Department in case something goes down it
needs to be fixed within XX amount of time. Managed switches allow you to
remote into them and administrate them to a more robust degree than you get
with non-managed, which is why they are more expensive.

 

[Skeleton Man]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a managed switch over

an unmanaged switch and vice versa?

I'm trying to build a very robust network for home / small business use.
I'm not worried about managing a switch, just interested in
understanding why one would want a managed switch.

In short, a managed switch allows to you control to a certain extent what
each port or group of ports is doing. You can turn ports on or off and do
things like seperate groups of ports into vlans so that you can have 3 or 4
seperate networks on a single switch (e.g. 3x 8 ports for a 24 port switch).

An umanaged switch just passes data between the appropriate ports without a
second thought - which in 99% of cases is what you want.

Usually managed switches are for large enterprises such as big businesses,
schools, ISPs, etc that need a great deal of control over their environment.

Chris

 

[Chip Thomas]

In short, a managed switch allows to you control to a certain extent what
each port or group of ports is doing. You can turn ports on or off and do
things like seperate groups of ports into vlans so that you can have 3 or 4
seperate networks on a single switch (e.g. 3x 8 ports for a 24 port switch).

An umanaged switch just passes data between the appropriate ports without a
second thought - which in 99% of cases is what you want.

Usually managed switches are for large enterprises such as big businesses,
schools, ISPs, etc that need a great deal of control over their environment.

Chris

I don't need network segregation.

I do need high reliability / continuous availability. I don't need much
level of control.

One port into a router, the rest into end-user computers, servers,
wireless access points and other switches.

It seems that all I need is a robust unmanaged switch.

Thanks,

Chip

 

[kony]

I don't need network segregation.

I do need high reliability / continuous availability. I don't need much
level of control.

Well... you either need a managed switch to have ANY level
of control, or with an unmanaged switch you have NO control
over the switch.

One port into a router, the rest into end-user computers, servers,
wireless access points and other switches.

It seems that all I need is a robust unmanaged switch.

What is robust supposed to mean? It's not like there's some
golden switch out there, any random switch you buy should
work or is defective and should be returned for refund (but
defect is rather rare unless considering a poorly designed
passive enclosure more prone to overheating if installed
where there is no ambient air movement and high room
temperature).

 

[Chip Thomas]

Well... you either need a managed switch to have ANY level
of control, or with an unmanaged switch you have NO control
over the switch.



What is robust supposed to mean? It's not like there's some
golden switch out there, any random switch you buy should
work or is defective and should be returned for refund (but
defect is rather rare unless considering a poorly designed
passive enclosure more prone to overheating if installed
where there is no ambient air movement and high room
temperature).

I consider "robust" as meaning that it provides continuous service
without interruption or downtime.

Many home routers "work" but need periodic reset. They work, but I
would not want them in my system because they do not provide reliable
service. I do not consider them very robust from an operational
perspective. But the manufacturer will not accept them as being defective.

A gigabit switch that only delivers reduce throughput or needs to be
reset periodically because a port hangs is operational but hardly to be
considered robust. If its poorly designed but it operates even in a
reduced-effectiveness manner, the manufacturer won't cover it under
warranty. I'll never use an unmanaged 3Com switch again for that reason.

These instances of problems occur much more frequently than the
manufacturers would seem to admit. I can't tolerate this kind of junk
in my network.

Chip

 

[kony]

I consider "robust" as meaning that it provides continuous service
without interruption or downtime.

That's just about every switch made, unless as mentioned
previously it has a poor enclosure plus poor placement plus
high ambient temp.

Many home routers "work" but need periodic reset. They work, but I
would not want them in my system because they do not provide reliable
service. I do not consider them very robust from an operational
perspective. But the manufacturer will not accept them as being defective.

Agreed, routers are more troublesome, sometimes needing
firmware fixes and sometimes needing more thought and action
than just where they're located. These days I almost always
pop open routers, arctic epoxy a heatsink onto the network
processing chip, and drill a few addt'l vent holes into the
cover. So far that seems to work fairly well. Anyway,
routers are more complex than switches and a lot more
problematic. With switches that are unmanaged you have
reduced the logical error possiblity due to simplier
firmware and lower processing requirement as well, though
typically being higher priced switches they may have better
engineering for cooling (including a fan upon occasion) in a
hotter environment like a rack, more applicable if you'd
actually place one in a hot rack.

A gigabit switch that only delivers reduce throughput or needs to be
reset periodically because a port hangs is operational but hardly to be
considered robust.

Ok, do you know of any that need this? IMO, that is very
uncommon even among the cheapest consumer switches.

If its poorly designed but it operates even in a
reduced-effectiveness manner, the manufacturer won't cover it under
warranty. I'll never use an unmanaged 3Com switch again for that reason.

Many people use 3Com switches without issue, you might need
to look at how your use or environment differs if you need
something in particular to counter that. IOW, many people
would consider 3Com switches sufficiently robust, that they
work w/o issue.

These instances of problems occur much more frequently than the
manufacturers would seem to admit. I can't tolerate this kind of junk
in my network.

Buy something from a seller with a good return policy and
put it through it's paces right away, so you have
opportunity to return for a full refund if it doesn't meet
your needs.

 

[Chip Thomas]

That's just about every switch made, unless as mentioned
previously it has a poor enclosure plus poor placement plus
high ambient temp.

Hardly the case nor is it my experience. Low quality electrolytic caps
can leak and fail over time. Though higher temperatures may accelerate
the process, the resulting failure is certain. Then there are the cheap
voltage regulators that can't tolerate much voltage variation or
overheat under high current draw. Do that too often and they go into
permanent retirement. (For an example of these failures, check the
reviews of the Netgear GS108)

Agreed, routers are more troublesome, sometimes needing
firmware fixes and sometimes needing more thought and action
than just where they're located. These days I almost always
pop open routers, arctic epoxy a heatsink onto the network
processing chip, and drill a few addt'l vent holes into the
cover. So far that seems to work fairly well. Anyway,
routers are more complex than switches and a lot more
problematic. With switches that are unmanaged you have
reduced the logical error possiblity due to simplier
firmware and lower processing requirement as well, though
typically being higher priced switches they may have better
engineering for cooling (including a fan upon occasion) in a
hotter environment like a rack, more applicable if you'd
actually place one in a hot rack.

With routers, its hard to overcome the [often time] crap firmware.
These cheap devices fail enough to make it worth investing the few extra
bucks to avoid interruptions in service and the associated hassles and
reboots that may be necessary to recover. Heat may have little to do
with a router that can't handle the load.

All these mods you do.... Is it really worth the time or effort? Seems
sorta like putting $1200 worth of tires on a used Yugo. I found it
easier to use better quality equipment that costs a few dollars and is
better quality. Your solution voids warranties and makes the devices
only marginally serviceable. And when those cheap caps or regulators
ultimately fail (which they will - just a matter of time), you're back
to square one without a warranty.

But even your efforts do not address problems with low-quality board
components. And when those cheap caps or regulators ultimately fail
(which they will - just a matter of time), you're back to square one
without a warranty.

Its easier and often cheaper to find a used Cisco router on eBay. Set
it up and forget it. Also the 3Com OfficeConnect Cable/DSL Router seems
to be pretty good. The OfficeConnect gigabit switches don't seem to
measure up to the router or their specs.

I run all of my equipment in a well-ventilated environment with a
ceiling fan moving the air around. No racks. No equipment cabinets.
Ambient temps usually around 65F or less in winter, 76F during summer.


I think you've started to address my question regarding managed vs.
unmanaged. If a managed switch will have fewer failures (because of the
extra engineering and more bullet-proof firmware), then that extra
reliability becomes part of the business decision on a switch purchase.
If an unmanaged switch of similar construction using similar firmware
(without the management options) and has roughly the same uptime
reliability for 60% of the price of a managed switch, the purchase
decision looks pretty clear.

Ok, do you know of any that need this? IMO, that is very
uncommon even among the cheapest consumer switches.

3Com OfficeConnect gigabit. Doesn't matter if its a 5-port or 8-port
switch. A gigabit switch that seems to run at the MOST around 250mbs.

Many people use 3Com switches without issue, you might need
to look at how your use or environment differs if you need
something in particular to counter that. IOW, many people
would consider 3Com switches sufficiently robust, that they
work w/o issue.

I though3Com was supposed to be pretty good also. I looked hard.

But 3Com performance didn't match the specs. After about three months
of reduced we started swapping out components until I identified the
3Com switches as the bottleneck. When the 3Coms were swapped out for
Netlink, D-Link and / or Cisco gigabit switches, the throughput jumped
dramatically. This happened at each point where the switches were
replaced.

If you check the more recent reports about 3Com OfficeConnect gigabit
switch performance, my observations are pretty consistent with others.

Buy something from a seller with a good return policy and
put it through it's paces right away, so you have
opportunity to return for a full refund if it doesn't meet
your needs.

Obviously.