Routers/switches to handle 300 mbps - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-10, 02:48 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Amherstburg, Ontario
Posts: 449
Routers/switches to handle 300 mbps

Hey guys,

Bell is currently upgrading my area with FTTH. I am looking at the 300 mbps old package that they used to advertise. I am going to hard wire all of my receivers/boxes but would like to know what kind of switch should I buy that can handle that kind of speed. I'm assuming bell is going to give me their router but I need more then 4 ethernet ports (thus the reason for the switch.)

Thanks,
Mike
cptcarter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-10, 03:39 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,681
get a gigabit switch
17671 is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-10, 04:15 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,504
Any unmanaged switch rated at "10/100/1000" Mbps should do the job. "10/100" switches won't. Netgear and Trendnet are popular brands that work well. I've had good luck with Trendnet Greennet switches in the metal case. Buy a switch with at least the number of connections required plus one (for the connection to the router.) For example, get an 8 port switch for 6 cables. It's better if all the PC, NAS and server cables go into the switch and only the switch is connected to the router. That's to prevent the cable between the switch and the router from becoming a bottleneck. If there are some slower speed or lower traffic devices on the network, they can be plugged directly into the router. 8 port routers typically cost about $50-$60 but sales are frequent so $40 or less is a realistic price.

Cabling is also important. Longer cables should be rated at CAT5e, CAT6 or better. Short cables can be CAT5 or better. It will be written on the cable in small print. Most cables made in the past 10 years should be adequate.
ExDilbert is offline  
 
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-10, 05:23 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 8,133
^^^^
CAT5 is good enough for everything he's likely to encounter. Gb Ethernet was specified for plain CAT5 cable, though you're more likely to find 5e these days. CAT6 won't be needed for anything less than 10 Gb. As for bottelnecks, you have to determine where your traffic is going before deciding that. For example, if most of your traffic is to the Internet, then the connection to it will be what limits it.

I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...
JamesK is online now  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-10, 09:17 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,504
If two gigabit routers are joined with a 1Gb cable, the cable will always be the bottleneck. The only answers traffic analysis will provide is how much of a bottleneck and how much of the time. Routers can typically handle 1Gb per port internally. That's 8Gb internally for an 8 port router, 16Gb for a 16 port router. If two 5 or 8 port routers are used instead can each handle 5Gb or 8Gb internally but will be restricted to a total of 1Gb between routers. Devices that can communicate at a full 1Gb between ports on a single router will be limited to a fraction of that when on separate routers.

I agree that CAT5 was designed for 1Gb but CAT5e is better for longer runs and is the de facto standard for new 1Gb cables. While CAT6 is not needed for 1Gb, it will provide future proofing with longer runs that are not easily replaced with any future upgrade to 10Gb. CAT6 typically costs little more than CAT5e so cost is not an issue. For short cables that can be easily replaced, CAT5 or CAT5e is good enough. CAT5e may even be better because CAT6 tends to be less flexible and short CAT5e cables can often handle up to 10Gb.
ExDilbert is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-11, 06:58 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 8,133
Quote:
Routers can typically handle 1Gb per port internally. That's 8Gb internally for an 8 port router, 16Gb for a 16 port router.
That would only be the case when the traffic is distributed equally among ports and assuming the switch can indeed handle that much. That's not always the case. With most users, the bulk of traffic is to/from the Internet or, with business networks, to servers. It's very much a funnel situation, where many feed to a few.

You might want to read this book for more info on Ethernet.

I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...
JamesK is online now  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 2018-08-11, 11:04 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,504
That may be the case with some switches. However, the D-Link and Trendnet switches in metal cases mentioned above are rate for 1Gbps*#ports.

I agree with your assessment of most traffic flow but it doesn't change the issue of potential bottlenecks when atypical traffic occurs. It's like saying we should only construct roads to downtown because that's where most people travel every day. A network should be able to handle all possible scenarios without impacting typical use.
ExDilbert is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome