Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Topic Options
#273677 - 06/01/2006 20:58 Is Cisco gear really that good?
andym
carpal tunnel

Registered: 17/01/2002
Posts: 3996
Loc: Manchester UK
I have a feeling that when it comes to enterprise-level routing and switching that Cisco is held in pretty high regard. But if you were going to put a 24 or possibly a 48 port 10/100 switch with a couple of GBit copper uplinks in a new office, would you shell out what is looking like £800 for a Cisco device or would you just grab a 3Com or Netgear offering for a third of the price?
_________________________
Cheers,

Andy M

Top
#273678 - 06/01/2006 21:08 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: andym]
DWallach
carpal tunnel

Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
I suppose it depends which Cisco features you're depending on. Here, the sysadms have been slowly but surely replacing older, cheaper switches with Cisco boxes that they can remotely manage. However, when I needed a 24-port GigE switch for a new cluster, the "managed" NetGear was an order of magnitude cheaper than the Cisco, so I got the NetGear.

Top
#273679 - 06/01/2006 21:21 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: DWallach]
andym
carpal tunnel

Registered: 17/01/2002
Posts: 3996
Loc: Manchester UK
Part of the issue is I'm looking for some places to save money, there are bits of the system I can't get cheaper models of (read complicated broadcast kit manufactured by one company) so something has to give somewhere. The network itself is really simple. 50-odd workstations with normal office-type applications and a handful of high performance video server type things.
_________________________
Cheers,

Andy M

Top
#273680 - 06/01/2006 21:26 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: andym]
DWallach
carpal tunnel

Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
SInce your network is relatively small, it makes sense to go with simpler, cheaper gear. You can always get something fancier later on if/when you decide you need it. The high performance video servers may want to be on their own smaller GigE switch, while the rest of the office might be perfectly happy on a bigger 100Mbit switch.

Top
#273681 - 06/01/2006 21:32 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: DWallach]
andym
carpal tunnel

Registered: 17/01/2002
Posts: 3996
Loc: Manchester UK
The current plan is recycle a managed GigE switch (which is actually a Netgear one, a 24 port Cisco GigE is incredibly expensive) for the 'core' but there seems to be a habit in the company of buying the cheapest Cisco 24 port switch available for office machines. It doesn't seem to make any sense since the office machines are probably the least important ones, the channel certainly won't drop off the air if they can't read their email!
_________________________
Cheers,

Andy M

Top
#273682 - 06/01/2006 21:36 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: andym]
Laura
pooh-bah

Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
My company uses a lot of the 3Com hubs, routers and switches because they are cheaper and is starting to go with more Cisco installs now due to a high rate of failure on the 3Com's. I haven't had very many of the Cisco devices in my area long enough to give an opinion yet but you usually get what you pay for
_________________________
Laura

MKI #017/90

whatever

Top
#273683 - 06/01/2006 21:54 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: andym]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
CIscos are very stable, but what you're paying for more is advanced features. It sounds like you probably don't need things like SNMP access, AAA, NTP, IGMP support, trunking, advanced STP, the ability to force speed/duplex on ports, or 802.11Q VLANs. You may not even need any sort of managability at all, but just plug-in and go.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#273684 - 06/01/2006 22:47 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: wfaulk]
DWallach
carpal tunnel

Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
One cheap way you can get redundancy is if your video servers have dual Ethernet ports. Then, you can run the 'A' ports to the 'A' switch and the 'B' ports to the 'B' switch. Sure, you have to buy twice as many switches, but you get rid of a single point of failure.

Top
#273685 - 07/01/2006 05:31 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: andym]
SuperQ
addict

Registered: 13/06/2000
Posts: 429
Loc: Berlin, DE
Cisco, BLEH.. hate the stuff myself. Most places that don't have a bunch of CCNAs around go with HP or netgear. I've played with a couple dell switches (re-braned something or other) they're stable enough, but I've heard about problems from some people.. maybe they just don't remember to save running config to stored config.

Also.. gige is cheap enough these days to just skip 10/100 ports.
_________________________
80gig red mk2 -- 080000125
(No, I don't actually hate Alan Cox)

Top
#273686 - 07/01/2006 09:51 Re: Is Cisco gear really that good? [Re: wfaulk]
andym
carpal tunnel

Registered: 17/01/2002
Posts: 3996
Loc: Manchester UK
Quote:
It sounds like you probably don't need things like SNMP access, AAA, NTP, IGMP support, trunking, advanced STP, the ability to force speed/duplex on ports, or 802.11Q VLANs. You may not even need any sort of managability at all, but just plug-in and go.


They want to run VoIP on the network as well using soft phones on the PCs so there was a lot of talk about QoS but it seems as long as the PCs are setup correctly then you don't need an amazing switch to make it work. The only other thing I was looking at was multicasting low bitrate video for office listening purposes although that was purely for that single office.

The switches in use else in the group are the bog-standard cheapest ones that Cisco do.
_________________________
Cheers,

Andy M

Top