Aetherstore, looks amazing, what about...
-
@MattSpeller said:
Until today I couldn't imagine using desktops for that either
This has been one of those things that people have proposed for decades. All that wasted, stable, always-on storage going to waste.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
Huh? a lot of people limit down too 100mb for desktops anyway with either the IP Phones or by the switch because they have only Cat5 cables run in the wall. If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter. And why are you going to fiber if you don't have it now? I only use Fiber from Core Switches to Access switches and from Router to WAN Fiber (and Site-Site Fiber). What other reason do you need it?
That being said I don't have much use for it. But I could see people using it where they don't have good centralize storage, or are always needing some extra utility storage or temporary project storage.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Huh? a lot of people limit down too 100mb for desktops anyway with either the IP Phones or by the switch because they have only Cat5 cables run in the wall.
A lot of times (most that I've seen) CAT5 will carry GigE reliably. Not always, but most of the time from what experiences I've had with it. Don't plan on that working, but often it works.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter.
Aka Linksys.
-
It would be a rare situation where I would want to carefully manage FastEthernet when I could have unmanaged GigE. I can think of some scenarios, but few and far between. And you could do GigE here and there. Throw in a $30 switch just for the AetherStore cluster and there is no concern around the bandwidth since you are using all "extra" bandwidth that doesn't exist outside of the main LAN.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter.
Aka Linksys.
Ah, those aren't Linksys nor re-branded. They are built after the separation and redone. They are nothing like linksys. They are a lot better than anything Netgear has ever put out.
-
@scottalanmiller
The Fibre is for links between buildings, so the speed is consistent between all devices, not keen on trading down the Fibre bandwidth for cat-5 over distance.Vlans are for guest wifi, that's the only reason why we need managed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Ah, those aren't Linksys nor re-branded. They are built after the separation and redone. They are nothing like linksys. They are a lot better than anything Netgear has ever put out.
We had to yank a lot of them and replace with Netgear due to quality issues. They are one of the lines that make me mistrust Cisco and what Cisco is willing to put their name on. We didn't recommend them, of course, but everyone jumped on them being Linksys division gear when we yanked them. That's what we heard from the SW crowd - we were berated for it being common knowledge and that it was ridiculous that we thought of them as Ciscos. Just repeating what we were told.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Vlans are for guest wifi, that's the only reason why we need managed.
Don't need managed for WiFi. And you can get low cost smart gear with one or two fiber ports for pretty cheap potentially. Far from free, but low cost.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller
The Fibre is for links between buildings, so the speed is consistent between all devices, not keen on trading down the Fibre bandwidth for cat-5 over distance.How far is the distance? I assume pretty far being different buildings.
-
Axiom has some really inexpensive SFP+ modules out there.
-
Here is Toby saying that they are from the Linksys line...
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/609496-cisco-sg-300-vs-cisco-2960sDoesn't make it authoritative. But I've heard this a bit since having dealt with them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Ah, those aren't Linksys nor re-branded. They are built after the separation and redone. They are nothing like linksys. They are a lot better than anything Netgear has ever put out.
We had to yank a lot of them and replace with Netgear due to quality issues. They are one of the lines that make me mistrust Cisco and what Cisco is willing to put their name on. We didn't recommend them, of course, but everyone jumped on them being Linksys division gear when we yanked them. That's what we heard from the SW crowd - we were berated for it being common knowledge and that it was ridiculous that we thought of them as Ciscos. Just repeating what we were told.
I think they may have been Linksys many many years ago when they looked like these: but the new ones are Cisco made. I think they slapped some cisco logos on some of the older ones too. Not sure why they didn't change the model number from the old stuff to the new stuff.
Older Style
Newer Cisco Ones. The Cisco ones while not full on IOS do have a CLI and supports all the same commands as IOS and also runs in layer 2 & 3 mode. The SG500 can stack as well. The Linksys crap can't. And it's just crap all around.
-
I'm not purchasing Cisco gear unless hell freezes over
If there is any other option (and there are) then we'll go with that.
-
Oh they definitely updated the badge to make it look new. No doubt there. But the code it is running appears to be Linksys code. Sure, they brought out the latest model number post divesting themselves of the Linksys disaster. But Cisco had integrated the low quality, ridiculous Linksys mindset and kept a Linksys derived "not really Cisco" group going to keep making Linksys style crap after selling the Linksys brand name on to Belkin, is what was implied. Even when they owned Linksys, it was still "Cisco" making the stuff. Just link it was Linksys making Sipura stuff. Once you buy a company, it's you.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'm not purchasing Cisco gear unless hell freezes over
If there is any other option (and there are) then we'll go with that.
Here is an example Netgear Prosafe. Low cost, smart, not managed, with VLAN support and fibre support.
http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/smart/GS724Tv4.aspx#tab-techspecs
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'm not purchasing Cisco gear unless hell freezes over
If there is any other option (and there are) then we'll go with that.
-
@coliver said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'm not purchasing Cisco gear unless hell freezes over
If there is any other option (and there are) then we'll go with that.
Those look great and likely I'd recommend them. Just haven't gotten my hands on one yet to test. Netgear Prosafe we have used and recommended for nearly twenty years.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
I'm not purchasing Cisco gear unless hell freezes over
If there is any other option (and there are) then we'll go with that.
Here is an example Netgear Prosafe. Low cost, smart, not managed, with VLAN support and fibre support.
http://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches/smart/GS724Tv4.aspx#tab-techspecs
Nothing but problems with those switches. literally I could tell you were about 75 of those are in the trash.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Oh they definitely updated the badge to make it look new. No doubt there. But the code it is running appears to be Linksys code. Sure, they brought out the latest model number post divesting themselves of the Linksys disaster. But Cisco had integrated the low quality, ridiculous Linksys mindset and kept a Linksys derived "not really Cisco" group going to keep making Linksys style crap after selling the Linksys brand name on to Belkin, is what was implied. Even when they owned Linksys, it was still "Cisco" making the stuff. Just link it was Linksys making Sipura stuff. Once you buy a company, it's you.
It's not the same code at all. I've looked a both. They aren't even the same hardware on the inside.
