Network switch advice (for a server rack)

[cjolley]

This doesn't seem like it would be all that unusual a specification but I can't find anything that seems reasonable that fills it.
What I have is a rack with four servers.
Each server has 2 nics + 1 more that is a management port.
Making twelve gigabit ports total as a minimum.
Then I want to connect this to our network with a 10gb fiber port.

So, a 16-24 port gigabit switch with at least 1 10gb fiber port.
It doesn't need to be manageable, provide power, or anything like that.
Just a plain switch.
Why is something like that so hard to find?

Any advice would be appreciated.

[Mehen]

Check out the HP ProLiant stuff. We use HP switches at work.

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/networking/index.html?psn=servers

[MultimediaMan]

Anything with a 10Gig Fiber port is well past the threshold for unmanaged switches.

What is this switch being used for? You might need a managed switch.

[Helevitia]

This doesn't seem like it would be all that unusual a specification but I can't find anything that seems reasonable that fills it.
What I have is a rack with four servers.
Each server has 2 nics + 1 more that is a management port.
Making twelve gigabit ports total as a minimum.
Then I want to connect this to our network with a 10gb fiber port.

So, a 16-24 port gigabit switch with at least 1 10gb fiber port.
It doesn't need to be manageable, provide power, or anything like that.
Just a plain switch.
Why is something like that so hard to find?

Any advice would be appreciated.

That's because 10Gb hasn't dropped down to the consumer level yet. You can get this swithc, but it will cost you 3-4K. Not exactly worth it.

Another option is to buy a switch that is only 10/100/1000 and supports LAG (Link Aggregation). This allows you to group up to 8 ports together to look like 1 big 8Gb port. The other side has to support it as well (pretty common these days) and have 2-8 ports free to do this.

An example of a switch that supports this is:http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9982/index.html

It only costs $650-ish. Not as bad as 3-4K, but still not too cheap. Anyhoo, I'm pretty sure ther are cheaper switches that support LAG, but I only know Cisco products Hope this helps.

Dave

[Helevitia]

Here's a better link:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps9967/ps9982/data_sheet_c78-502447.html

[MultimediaMan]

Helevitia,

Your description of Link Aggregation is a little misleading... it can mimic a fatter pipe if the pipe is busy with several requests to different hosts, but it is not truly a "fatter" pipe... it is a more efficient pipe (at the cost of ports).

[Helevitia]

Helevitia,

Your description of Link Aggregation is a little misleading... it can mimic a fatter pipe if the pipe is busy with several requests to different hosts, but it is not truly a "fatter" pipe... it is a more efficient pipe (at the cost of ports).

I don't think it's mis-leading. You get a fatter pipe at the cost of ports. That's what I said. If you have two servers connected at 1Gb each to a switch and then you ahe the switch connect to another switch with 2 aggregate ports and each server is doing line rate to the switch and then 1 server sends data over 1 aggregate port and the other server sends data over the other port, how is that mis-leading?

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9967/products_qanda_item09186a0080a36439.shtml

[MultimediaMan]

I don't think it's mis-leading. You get a fatter pipe at the cost of ports. That's what I said. If you have two servers connected at 1Gb each to a switch and then you ahe the switch connect to another switch with 2 aggregate ports and each server is doing line rate to the switch and then 1 server sends data over 1 aggregate port and the other server sends data over the other port, how is that mis-leading?

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/...80a36439.shtml

The 8GB Bandwidth-part. People tend to think that if they have a 2 NIC Server talking with another 2NIC server in a Link Aggregated network that it will get them 2GB of bandwidth between the two; that's not the case. Let me emphasize that this is a minor quibble.

At any rate, 10GB Fiber is still pretty expensive and uplinking that much raw bandwidth to another switch is pretty heavy duty... a network "whoopsie" with that much bandwidth could get ugly if you've got iSCSI or NFS going on.

[cjolley]

Great information guys.
Turns out now that 10g is not an option.

The link aggregation thing sounds interesting.
More details to come when I get to work.