HP Switches 2530 vs 1950 vs 1920
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
HP is Hewlett-Packard
I know, but who wants to type that
There is autocomplete now, just type "hew" and it fills it in for you.
-
The 1900 Series is a lower end SMB webbased model.
The 2530 is a bit higher end. Each will have different switching capacities and throughput's.
The 1900 Series is just a "Smart" switch which looks to have some L3 features.
The 2530 is a highend Layer 2 Switch so it does not have any L3 features.
-
Doh.. I thought I checked them all for Layer 3 ability - thanks for pointing that out.. the 2530 is out of the running.
-
Do you need full SNMP management? For SMBs, Smart Switches are often superior.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you need full SNMP management? For SMBs, Smart Switches are often superior.
While it could be nice for reporting to see traffic patterns it's not required (and I don't know.. maybe I can get that anyway?)
The 2824 I currently have is acting like a core switch for my business. This replacement switch will do the same.
My VM hosts will all connect to it, and all of my switches will cascade from it as well. -
How many switches do you have total? What is the VLANing for? You have a lot of physical security domains?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
How many switches do you have total? What is the VLANing for? You have a lot of physical security domains?
I have 5 switches total. VLANing because I was old school when I set it up originally not liking the idea of collision domains greater than 256 devices - frankly still don't but I trust the math that with switches having a /31 or /30 network shouldn't be an issue. But changing it would require redoing the IP scheme across the board.
-
@Dashrender said:
I have 5 switches total. VLANing because I was old school when I set it up originally not liking the idea of collision domains greater than 256 devices - frankly still don't but I trust the math that with switches having a /31 or /30 network shouldn't be an issue. But changing it would require redoing the IP scheme across the board.
Switches don't have collision domains, by definition. You are thinking of hubs circa 1999.
Switches can have /22 no problem. Normal people have /24.
-
/24 is 256 devices, /23 is 512, /22 is 1024.
Really /21 is fine these days. Even on Wall St. /22 is common.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I have 5 switches total. VLANing because I was old school when I set it up originally not liking the idea of collision domains greater than 256 devices - frankly still don't but I trust the math that with switches having a /31 or /30 network shouldn't be an issue. But changing it would require redoing the IP scheme across the board.
Switches don't have collision domains, by definition. You are thinking of hubs circa 1999.
Switches can have /22 no problem. Normal people have /24.
You're right - I'm completely beside myself today and wrote the wrong number. I have /24 today, I'd have to go to /23 (or /22 - to never worry again) to get all of my devices inside a single network.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
/24 is 256 devices, /23 is 512, /22 is 1024.
Really /21 is fine these days. Even on Wall St. /22 is common.
Yeah - I wasn't thinking... we have /30 from some of our ISPs... and I was just confusing them... of course /24 is the common.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're right - I'm completely beside myself today and wrote the wrong number. I have /24 today, I'd have to go to /23 (or /22 - to never worry again) to get all of my devices inside a single network.
That would be what to do. The most demanding networks work fine on /22. Since there is no such thing as collisions, any issue with a /22 or even a /21 means you have something wrong on the network already.
-
I agree there aren't collisions anymore (at least with switches) but what do you call the domain that all broadcasts go to? You could still have saturation cause by broadcasts storms, but those are normally limited to a single VLAN - though I'm guessing the pegging out of the processor on the switch is the main concern, so it doesn't really matter if all of the VLANs run through the switch, they'll all be affected.
-
@Dashrender said:
I agree there aren't collisions anymore (at least with switches) but what do you call the domain that all broadcasts go to?
A broadcast domain. Broadcasts cross bridges, collisions do not.
If you have any concerns with broadcasts on /22 it means you have something wrong that you need to address. Being on /24 would be a bandaid, not a fix.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I agree there aren't collisions anymore (at least with switches) but what do you call the domain that all broadcasts go to?
A broadcast domain. Broadcasts cross bridges, collisions do not.
If you have any concerns with broadcasts on /22 it means you have something wrong that you need to address. Being on /24 would be a bandaid, not a fix.
yeah I came to that conclusion while writing the previous post.
-
@Dashrender said:
You could still have saturation cause by broadcasts storms, but those are normally limited to a single VLAN
You can have that with a /28. IF this is happening at any of these sizes it is because something is terribly wrong. If you are going to /24 because of this you are not addressing what is actually wrong on the network.
-
@Dashrender said:
though I'm guessing the pegging out of the processor on the switch is the main concern, so it doesn't really matter if all of the VLANs run through the switch, they'll all be affected.
That's possible. VLANs will limit some things in the case where there is a disaster. But yes, if it pushes the switch hard or bottlenecks any of the ports, you are screwed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That would be what to do. The most demanding networks work fine on /22. Since there is no such thing as collisions, any issue with a /22 or even a /21 means you have something wrong on the network already.
Where is a good document proving that though?
-
This is why I recommend a single big flat network with a single switching infrastructure. Gets rid of the bottlenecks.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Where is a good document proving that though?
That 256 is a problem? I'm not aware of there being anything to suggest that it is.
