General discussion

Locked

Hubs vs. Switches

By mike.peck ·
I have a 45 node NT Server 4.0 network. At times the network traffic seriously slows the network. At the present time I am using 10 Mbs hubs. Would I be better off replacing the hubs with 100 Mbs hubs or changing over to switches. Cost is a consideration and switches seem to be more expensive. Most of the workstations and all of the servers have 10/100 mbs NICs.
Thanks
Mike Peck

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

19 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by aspiring_one In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

I think answer one is the best because I have had bad experiences with trying to connect hubs to switches. It only makes for a lot of unnecessary confusion.

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by mike.peck In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by dpypno In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

A switch is the only way to go, for present and future purposes. You need to think about infrastructure stability, this will justify the additional cost everytime. If you have any network printers (ex...Jet Direct) use one of your 10mb hubs to run them if you want to save on port costs, i have implemented this structure many times without a problem. I work for a VAR, and we have historically sold 3COM, but we have found with the expandability, stabilty, and pricing, HP Procurves are definately worth looking at. I have to support what we sell, and I am more than comfortable when we bid these.
Anyway, since i'm sounding more like a sales rep instead of a tech, I'll just say, take a look and you'll like what you see.

Good Luck,
Dave

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by mike.peck In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by dbowlin In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

A switch will give you dedicated bandwidth to each port, rather than the shared bandwitdh of a hub. A switch will also give you more growth headroom because of the dedicated bandwidth. As more of your users begin using more services from the network, sucking more bandwidth, the collision rate in even a 100mbps hub can begin to cause you problems. Go with a switch now, because you will need one eventually. Also, take a critical look at your wiring before making the leap to 100mbps. To say it is Cat5 is not enough, we had Cat5 in the entire plant and we began to experience a lot of problems after upgrading to 100mbps. Cat5 poorly installed is not Cat5. Too much untwisting of the pairs at all connection points (patch panels, wallplates, and patch cords), as well as running the cable in contact with electrical wiring, lighting and other EMI sources can cause great and difficult to pin down troubles. Good luck

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by mike.peck In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by normandu In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

I would definitely go with a switch. With dedicated 100Mbs ports you will have increased throughput from the respective nodes. Cost might be an issue but you have to look at the longterm implications. Switches might cost you a bit more npw but the benefits that you will gaim from increased productivity and better overall performance will be well worth it. You might want to try cascading a few of your hubs through the switch as well but try to rotate your 100Mbs NIC's to your power users to maximize their bandwith as well. Try to keep the respective workgroups on one hub.

Good luck Mike.

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by mike.peck In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Hubs vs. Switches

by mike.peck In reply to Hubs vs. Switches

This question was auto closed due to inactivity

Back to Windows Forum
19 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02

Related Discussions

Related Forums