Switch or Hub?

[Drew]

Hi,

can someone please tell me the difference between a switch and a hub. What
should I get for a home network.

thanks

 

[Kanda' Jalen Eirsie]

Greetings...

Hi,

can someone please tell me the difference between a switch and a hub. What
should I get for a home network.

thanks

In general, a switch is a more intelligent Hub. Get a switch.

Specs vary from manufacturer to manufacturer but in general -

Hubs usually only allow ONE 'conversation' to "complete" at a time while a switch can
switch between multiple 'conversations'..

Said another way: If you had a 3 computer network:
(based on my own personal experience)

With a hub -
Machine C would have to wait (and may time out) while A and B were transferring a huge
file.
If machine A broadcasts video, or voice - only 1 other machine could see it at a time.
If machine A is acting as gateway for internet connection sharing - If machine B started
a lengthy download, machine C could have trouble connecting, - may experience lag etc..

With a switch -
Machine C would still be able to do something during the transfer.
Both B and C would see the broadcast at the same time.
All machines would see the Internet much better with less lag.


These days, switches are usually cheaper than hubs.
Switches are usually faster than hubs.
About the only advantage a hub has over a switch is it's ability to "jack in" over a
long cable (100 meter), a machine located too far away to directly connect to the lan
through the switch.

Technically - a switch is used to isolate or create sub nets on a network, while a hub
is used to connect machines (or devices) together on that subnet. - that's confusing I
know...

A switch cuts up the communication packets ('conversations') and delivers them more
efficiently than a hub does. So you get fewer collisions and fewer wait times for the
packets to get through.

All in all, for a small home network a switch is best.

I'd recommend a router if you can afford it, and you want to invest into the future, but
you can always get one later - and the way things evolve these days, You may be better off
waiting... Maybe one day, routers will be even less expensive than switches.


ll
Kanda'

<>SPAM-KILLER<>- If you really want to contact me, then -
kandaje<at>bresnan<dot>net

You figure it out...

 

[kony]

Hi,

can someone please tell me the difference between a switch and a hub. What
should I get for a home network.

thanks

A hub is a dumb repeater, a switch only sends data where it needs to
go. For a small home lan it doesn't make much difference unless you
have simultaneous heavy usage, say large file copying or video
playback.

Today the best choice might be a wireless router... Even most of the
cheaper ones have a 4 port switch built-in, the routing (which you
don't HAVE to make use of if you don't need it), and of course the
wireless support. Not too long ago these wireless routers were very
expensive but today you might find some in the weekend newpapers for
almost free after rebate. If you ONLY want it to act as a switch, not
a router at all, just turn off the DHCP function (or leave it on, the
network could work as-is or with the DHCP server function working)
then ignore the other features... until you want them, then you have
them without buying more equipment again.


Dave

 

[Todd H.]

Hi,

can someone please tell me the difference between a switch and a
hub. What should I get for a home network.

Switches are newer technology and typically quite a bit faster than
hubs. With switch prices plumeting, and their inclusion in handy
firewall/router devices and wireless access points that can be had for
under $100, practically no one bothers with hubs anymore.

Switches typically enable full duplex communication on each of their
ports. Hubs physically share media on a bus...so a hub cannot allow
two computers on your network to talk to each other in full
duplex--only one can talk at a time. On hubs, you'll have ethernet
collisions which will force one machine to retransmit, whilst on a
switch each port is its own physical segment, so collisions aren't
typically possible.

There is a noticeable speed benefit in transferring files between
machines on a switch versus a hub, especially if you're running
100Mbps Fast Ethernet.

Best Regards,

 

[Not so quick]

A hub is a dumb repeater, a switch only sends data where it needs to
go. For a small home lan it doesn't make much difference unless you
have simultaneous heavy usage, say large file copying or video
playback.

Today the best choice might be a wireless router... Even most of the
cheaper ones have a 4 port switch built-in, the routing (which you
don't HAVE to make use of if you don't need it), and of course the
wireless support. Not too long ago these wireless routers were very
expensive but today you might find some in the weekend newpapers for
almost free after rebate. If you ONLY want it to act as a switch, not
a router at all, just turn off the DHCP function (or leave it on, the
network could work as-is or with the DHCP server function working)
then ignore the other features... until you want them, then you have
them without buying more equipment again.


Dave

Aren't wireless routers a lot slower than hard wired?
I bought a LinkSys router for $40 at Best Buy and it is
working very nicely for a 3 computer LAN. It has a built
in firewall. I bought the more expensive one with an
extra firewall but after talking to Linksys support, which
is one of the best of any tech supports ever 24-7, I
returned it and bought the $40 one. All 3 computers
access the net and file transfers are faster than with the
Linksys switch I has before. You need the router for
cable modem.

BTW, I bought a Microsoft router first, thinking it would
be more compatible with XP but it was terrible. The tech
support had a bad connection from India, didn't call back
after disconnect and didn't have the same expertise. I
called Belkin just to see what their tech support was like
after deciding to return the MS router. They said that they
didn't support connecting to LAN because "Microsoft
got mad at them" for supporting windows based products,
is XP. Hard to believe...

Good luck

 

[~misfit~]

Greetings...



In general, a switch is a more intelligent Hub. Get a switch.

Specs vary from manufacturer to manufacturer but in general -

Hubs usually only allow ONE 'conversation' to "complete" at a time
while a switch can switch between multiple 'conversations'..

Said another way: If you had a 3 computer network:
(based on my own personal experience)

With a hub -
Machine C would have to wait (and may time out) while A and B were
transferring a huge file.
If machine A broadcasts video, or voice - only 1 other machine
could see it at a time. If machine A is acting as gateway for
internet connection sharing - If machine B started a lengthy
download, machine C could have trouble connecting, - may experience
lag etc..

With a switch -
Machine C would still be able to do something during the transfer.
Both B and C would see the broadcast at the same time.
All machines would see the Internet much better with less lag.


These days, switches are usually cheaper than hubs.
Switches are usually faster than hubs.
About the only advantage a hub has over a switch is it's ability
to "jack in" over a long cable (100 meter), a machine located too far
away to directly connect to the lan through the switch.

Technically - a switch is used to isolate or create sub nets on a
network, while a hub is used to connect machines (or devices)
together on that subnet. - that's confusing I know...

A switch cuts up the communication packets ('conversations') and
delivers them more efficiently than a hub does. So you get fewer
collisions and fewer wait times for the packets to get through.

All in all, for a small home network a switch is best.

I'd recommend a router if you can afford it, and you want to invest
into the future, but you can always get one later - and the way
things evolve these days, You may be better off waiting... Maybe one
day, routers will be even less expensive than switches.

Great explaination Kanda', well put. *I* knew that but I don't know about
routers. As you are good at this kind of thing do you think you could please
explain why a router would be even better for a home LAN?

Thanks,

 

[Todd H.]

Aren't wireless routers a lot slower than hard wired?

The wireless transmissions are slower than the hard wired ones if
we're comparing to 100Mb/s fast ethernet. Standard 802.11g in
comparison is best-case 54Mb/s. And best case rarely happens unless
you're on top of the access point.

Many wireless routers also include hard wired switches too.

BTW, I bought a Microsoft router first, thinking it would
be more compatible with XP but it was terrible.

Not surprising...as Microsoft is a software company that is out of
their forte when it comes to hardware.

 

[Noozer]

Hi,

can someone please tell me the difference between a switch and a hub. What
should I get for a home network.

Hub - All devices connected will fight for access to the network. Any
traffic put into the hub will be sent to all other machines connected. If
there is more than one transaction going on collisions can occur easily and
slow data between all the computers involved.

Switch - Learns where each computer is connected and when sending data it
only goes between the ports for the involved computers. Other ports never
see the traffic. Multiple data streams can go through a switch without
affecting each other.

Router - Many different versions of these. The most common is basically a
switch with a firewall/dhcp server and some other managed services. This is
a MUST have if you connect your computer to the internet through a broadband
connection (and possibly dialup as well)

The average network user would benefit most from a switch. Games may see
better LAN game performance with a hub. Anyone connecting to the internet
with broadband (DSL, Cable) should definately get a router.

 

[kony]

Aren't wireless routers a lot slower than hard wired?

See above ^
Most now have wired switches built-in, so you can use CAT5 where it's
convenient and wireless where it isn't. 802.11b is slightly too slow
for high-res Divx, but D-Link, for example, has some cards that
include a proprietary compression so they can achieve 2 or 4X that
throughput and still maintain interoperability with other brand of
standard 802.11b, but pretty soon I expect 802.11g will be cheap
enough that it will be the obvious choice even when only
low-throughput is needed. On the other hand, Gigabit adapters are
cheaper now too but few people seem to have adopted them.

BTW, I bought a Microsoft router first, thinking it would
be more compatible with XP but it was terrible. The tech
support had a bad connection from India, didn't call back
after disconnect and didn't have the same expertise. I
called Belkin just to see what their tech support was like
after deciding to return the MS router. They said that they
didn't support connecting to LAN because "Microsoft
got mad at them" for supporting windows based products,
is XP. Hard to believe...

Good luck

Hard to say what was really going on there, but I'm sure if Microsoft
had their way they'd take complete control of the networking hardware
too. I get the feeling that someday future generations will look back
and be surprised that we put up with Microsoft for as long as (we
did).


Dave