so you wouldn't say it's very usable to do itunes and aperture, for instance, with that method...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dual Gigabit Lan Ports... why?
- Thread starter nickname
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
so you wouldn't say it's very usable to do itunes and aperture, for instance, with that method...
I don't know you would have to try it. I have never tried it what I have told you is all from experience. But in a networking environment all files are saved remotely without a problem and thats on a 100 base/t system.
You can, it's called Port Trunking. It must be set up on the switch too though, and usually you will need a Level 2 Managed Switch (like a Netgear GSM7224). Some Smart Switches support it too though, I think.
right now i have a 10/100 router, and using cable internet... is it possible if i buy a gigabit switch and do this
[Cable Modem]
_____|
[10/100 Router] - - - wireless
_____|
[Gigabit Switch]
___|________|
[Comp1] [Comp2] ... etc
?
because last time i checked, i remember the switch can only share somethign.. aka all ports are equivalent, there's no "Internet" port and "LAN" ports differentiation.
edit: i guess i want to know how is that different from
[Cable Modem]
_____|
[10/100/1000 Router] - - - wireless
___|________|
[Comp1] [Comp2] ... etc
in terms of speed, and convenience...
[Cable Modem]
_____|
[10/100 Router] - - - wireless
_____|
[Gigabit Switch]
___|________|
[Comp1] [Comp2] ... etc
?
because last time i checked, i remember the switch can only share somethign.. aka all ports are equivalent, there's no "Internet" port and "LAN" ports differentiation.
edit: i guess i want to know how is that different from
[Cable Modem]
_____|
[10/100/1000 Router] - - - wireless
___|________|
[Comp1] [Comp2] ... etc
in terms of speed, and convenience...
Yes, link aggregating is like combining the speeds of both ports and effectively doubling the speed. But you don't download directly any faster, only in parallel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation
oh, thats fine, i'm more interested increase the speed between computers...
but would the 2 setup be any different in terms of speed and oh i dont know, some features?
can i do port forward and stuff with the switch?
Only if the switch is also a router. Barebone switches don't care about routing in the sense you're talking about.
They would act identical. You may even get a tiny bit faster speeds using the switch. But they would be really small. Sometimes cheaper routers slow things down a little. But yes they would act identical.
Yeah, I guess that was my same question, i.e. if i could improve speed accessing my lan for file transfers, since obviously traffic outside the lan will be dictated by my isp.
cheers.
hmm... see, that's what i thought.. until i saw this diagram
thats a 5 port gigabit desktop switch, GS605 from netgear
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Switches/DesktopSwitches/GS605.aspx
my point is... provided you saw the post i was quoting, in which the poster said it would only work if the switch is a router, can i get my desired effect... and i'm posting a picture of a switch that does not intuitively strike me as a router, however the diagram does show it can be connect to the router and still achieve my desired effect
Both are acceptable I suppose. What kind of wireless are you going to be using. If you are using Pre-N stuff, then I'd go for the second option, since the 10/100 router will be a bottleneck. If its just 802.11g, then you shouldn't see any bottlenecks with the first one, and it is probably a lot less expensive.
i'm not using any of the pre-N stuff... i'm using mostly wired connection, it's just maybe occasionally id bring my laptop around the house, and i certainly dont expect full speed...
but for the wired connections, the 2 are of the same speed?
(wait, are you saying Pre-N is faster than 100Mb/s?)
that might have been the case if we work with a non-bottleneck router (it will need caching one way or the other), furthermore the information sent through TCP/IP will have more overhead (destination + more), which the FW driwe won't have to cope with, signal distortion will also take much more affect over larger area (such as a network) - so I would guess that the overall speed through TCP/IP will have a natural botteneck even during ideal conditions - itself.
Well the 1000 base/t is very fast for example when I copy files between our Xeon servers which both have 10k drives it hits a max of 25% network usage but most of the time closer to %10-%15 So 1000 base/t is plenty fast its just the latency that will cause problems.
Pre-N can peak at 300 Mb/s, so a 100Mb/s wired connection wouldn't be doing it justice. However, as with any wireless product, going away from the base station even by a matter of feet can start reducing your speeds dramatically. Don't expect to get 300 Mb/s more than a couple of feet away from the base station, but you could probably still get over 100 Mb/s at a decent distance.
I guess I'm misreading the image, then.
The image shows a PC connected to a switch, which is in turn connected to a router, which is the connected to a broadband modem.
It shows nothing of a "dual link" betweent he PCs and the switch.
it does not have anything to do with dual link (i guess i successfully hijacked another thread)
i just wanted to make sure switch connected to a router does the same thing as a router by itself would do
either of your earlier diagrams will work for you...that is, depending on the switched hub you buy.
I have experienced in the past that some hubs will only operate as fast as the fastest device connected, including the uplink. Since your current router only support 100baseT, its possible the new gigabit hub may throttle down. Just make sure whatever hub you are looking at doesn't do this, and you should be fine.
If it were me, I would just get a gigabit router and be done with it. I like simplicity.
i only care about the transfer rate between computers... as long as that's not limited by the router (which it shouldn't) i'm fine
i was thinking i'll get one with N once it's certified and all that, plus it's really expensive now
First off just to keep it clear. A switch and a hub are very different. They may seem to do the same thing, but the way they work is very different. The switch is the better of the two.
I have never heard of a switch or a hub throttling down for the slowest device it will just run that port at the slower speed. It must have been either a really old hub or switch....or really cheap.
I know the difference, I don't need a networking lesson...Switch is just a short name for Switched (or Switching) hub...
Throttling is more of an issue with when using a hub, its not that uncommon that a hub based network will only be as fast as the slowest client since hubs don't track individual ports (like say a switch). Try it for yourself.
Sorry about that. Its just may people think a switch is the same as a hub so they go for the cheaper and they buy the hub.