Will multiple switches slow speeds?

[nojohnny101]

Hey everyone,

Code:

This is my current setup:
ASRock C226M WS Micro ATX
Intel Pentium G3258 Dual-Core 3.2GHz
Kingston DDR3 ECC Unbuffered (KVR16E11/8) 8gb x 4
Segate NAS 3.5" 3TB x 6 (raidz2)
Sandisk Cruzer CZ33 16gb x 2 (mirrored) for boot
SeaSonic G Series SSR-550RM 550W Modular Plus Gold
Fractal Node 804
Noctua NF-F12 PWM (intake) & Noctua 140MM Premium Quiet (exhaust)
APC BR1000G 1000VA UPS
FreeNAS-9.10.2-U2 (e1497f2)

I have a relatively simple question. I don't do much with my box beyond having a few shares (mostly accessed by me, rarely accessed by someone remotely) and streaming plex (remote and local). I am getting full throughput when transferring to shares between my laptop and the box as they are hard wired.

Here is my current network setup:

My question is: I want to add another hard-wired computer to the same location where my laptop is located but it would be a pain to run another ethernet cable through the wall, attic, etc. So instead I was thinking about just getting another small, relatively cheap switch and putting it between my laptop and the other switch, then that would give me more hardwired connections where my laptop is currently located.

Bad idea?

If it makes any difference, this is the network equipment:
Switch: TP-Link 5-Port Gigabit Ethernet Unmanaged Switch - https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-Ethe...09192517&sr=8-4&keywords=5+port+switch+tplink
Router: Archer C9 v1 - http://www.tp-link.com/us/products/details/cat-5506_Archer-C9.html
Modem: Arris Surfboard SB6190 DOCSIS 3.0 - https://www.amazon.com/ARRIS-SURFbo...qid=1509193270&sr=1-9&keywords=internet+modem

Thanks everyone for you help!

 

[joeschmuck]

This is a good idea to add a switch, this is what I do in my home and I have four switches. The question really comes down to bandwidth limitations and would you be affected by it in the real world use of your equipment.

So while you would be limiting your laptop and computer to the maximum bandwith of 1gbps, does that really make a difference? Lets say you are transferring files like crazy to your FreeNAS machine, well it has a single 1gbps line as well so you are not going any faster. Lets say you are transferring from your laptop to freenas at full speed but on your new computer you want to download a large file and you have very fast internet. Yes, there will be a bottleneck over the 1gbps line but is that really your only bottleneck? No it isn't, your current switch is likely a bottleneck as well. Switches are not all the same and you get what you pay for. The better quality switches are able to pass full speed network traffic between all ports at full speed while your network switch may be only capable of passing one port at full speed, or two ports at 50% speed. I'm not eggagerating too much here but for this example I could be. Your switch could pass data better.

So my advice is to add that second switch and enjoy the hard wired connectivity, it's by far faster than typical WiFi although my 5GHz WiFi is fast! I can get over 800mbps which is almost as good as WiFi.

 

[nojohnny101]

Thank you for the thoughtful response @joeschmuck

I do not have a blazing fast internet connection. I did some calculations, and was thinking of the following:

1 Gb/s ethernet connection (theoretical) will give me 125 MB/s
So it seems since I can transfer to my FN box currently at around 110MB/s, I am saturating the really world throughput of the ethernet.

Like I stated though, I am not constantly hammering the server, just once in a while to dump things onto it and those transfers don't usually last more than a couple of minutes.

My internet coming to the house is:
100Mbps down and 12 Mbps up

So if I added another unmanaged switch at the location indicated above, and let's say one computer was downloading something from the internet at the max download speed (unlikely) then that would only take up 12.5MB/s of the 125MB/s connection to the 1st switch?

Also how can you tell how good a switch is? Almost all the switches advertise as having 5 gigabit ports but how are you suppose to discern how many of those you can hammer at one time with gigabit speeds? Is there anyway to extract that from a spec sheet?

Thanks!

 

[joeschmuck]

Also how can you tell how good a switch is? Almost all the switches advertise as having 5 gigabit ports but how are you suppose to discern how many of those you can hammer at one time with gigabit speeds? Is there anyway to extract that from a spec sheet?

As for the switch selection and bandwidth/switching capacity info, yea it can be difficult to locate that type of data so I like to look at some reviews. Here is a link that reviews several switches and guess what, your present switch is in the list too. If I were to purchase another 5 or 8 port switch then based off of this review I would choose the Zyxel. Also, since you already have a 5 port switch, I'd buy the 8 port version just in case you need it later. For the cost and the performance I don't see how you could go wrong. Of course I would search the internet for other specific reviews on this product in case something other than good things are being said about the device. You need tot do your due dilligence when purchasing a product to ensure it's not a lemon. If you purchase a very new product then you are always taking a chance but with risk you can find rewards.

So if I added another unmanaged switch at the location indicated above, and let's say one computer was downloading something from the internet at the max download speed (unlikely) then that would only take up 12.5MB/s of the 125MB/s connection to the 1st switch?

In simple terms yes. If you were able to get a sustained 25.5MB/s download then you would have still have 99.5MB/sec remaining. Technically you will have a slight amount of drop due to overhead and packet collisions but it would be minimal. I'm not an Ethernet expert, I can only tell you what I've read or experienced. We do have some IT guys here on the forums that may be able to shed more light on this topic.

Let's talk a little bit more about your network setup. I doubt that you listed your entire network layout but if yout did then disregard the following...

If you have any ethernet cables coming from your Router to any other high speed hardware like another computer then you should relocate the connection to a switch if possible. However in your situation you actually have a nice Router (I had considered that one myself) but I don't know the specs on the 4 port built in switch so it may be doing great or could be a limitation. The ideal situation is to only route your WiFi and Internet though the router, nothing else. The only exceptions would be slow devices such as a laser printer for example. All fast devices should go through a switch and this is all from a bandwidth/speed perspective. Of course you need to be able to physically achieve this at a reasonable cost so you may not want to add another switch, especially if all is working great as-is. This is just some advice on setting up a network, if it isn't working as well as you hoped it would.

Now I want to buy the 8 port Zyxel switch. My wife is going to hate on me if another computer part shows up. I have an older Netgear cheap 5 port switch in the basement and while my throughput is pretty darn good, I've wanted two more ports a few times and this would solve the issue to repalce the 5 port switch vice adding yet another switch near by (I have done that a few times).

And I too get sustained transfer rates of ~120MB/sec to my FreeNAS box so we are both in the same ballpark. My FreeNAS box is connected to the same switch that my computer is connected to right now so it's pretty much a straight shot.

 

[nojohnny101]

As for the switch selection and bandwidth/switching capacity info, yea it can be difficult to locate that type of data so I like to look at some reviews. Here is a link that reviews several switches and guess what, your present switch is in the list too. If I were to purchase another 5 or 8 port switch then based off of this review I would choose the Zyxel. Also, since you already have a 5 port switch, I'd buy the 8 port version just in case you need it later. For the cost and the performance I don't see how you could go wrong. Of course I would search the internet for other specific reviews on this product in case something other than good things are being said about the device. You need tot do your due dilligence when purchasing a product to ensure it's not a lemon. If you purchase a very new product then you are always taking a chance but with risk you can find rewards.

Some good points. I have been burned one too many times to not do proper research before purchasing. That doesn't mean I always know what to search for, but I always make my best attempt. I bought the TL-SG1005D because it had so many reviews (over 6,000) with a 4.5 average. I also check multiple sites (not just amazon) as I always do (particularly newegg, as the people that review there are much more technical in general). I went ahead an ordered an 8-port Zyxel, so I will report back after I integrate that.

In simple terms yes. If you were able to get a sustained 25.5MB/s download then you would have still have 99.5MB/sec remaining. Technically you will have a slight amount of drop due to overhead and packet collisions but it would be minimal. I'm not an Ethernet expert, I can only tell you what I've read or experienced. We do have some IT guys here on the forums that may be able to shed more light on this topic.

I do know enough to next expected stated numbers because of efficiency losses and the cost of protocols, so I am happy with how my current setup is delivering speed. I have also not had any reliability problems thus far (knocks on wood).

Let's talk a little bit more about your network setup. I doubt that you listed your entire network layout but if yout did then disregard the following...

You're right, I didn't want to overwhelm any people willing to respond but since you are always so thorough and thoughtful in your responses, I feel by not providing the whole picture, I would not be holding up my end of the bargain:

If you have any ethernet cables coming from your Router to any other high speed hardware like another computer then you should relocate the connection to a switch if possible. However in your situation you actually have a nice Router (I had considered that one myself) but I don't know the specs on the 4 port built in switch so it may be doing great or could be a limitation. The ideal situation is to only route your WiFi and Internet though the router, nothing else. The only exceptions would be slow devices such as a laser printer for example. All fast devices should go through a switch and this is all from a bandwidth/speed perspective. Of course you need to be able to physically achieve this at a reasonable cost so you may not want to add another switch, especially if all is working great as-is. This is just some advice on setting up a network, if it isn't working as well as you hoped it would.

This is something I didn't know, routing all demanding traffic through the switches. Is this to reduce load on the router so it can perform DHCP and wireless functions unimpeded? The TP-Link Archer C9 is not bad, I have mounted CPU and usage memory on it under head loads and it never peaks above 60% so it is serving my needs for now. My future plan is to setup a pfSense box but grad school had put those plans on hold. I will shift things around based upon your recommendation and modify my setup outlined above to put all wired demanding devices on the switch.

Now I want to buy the 8 port Zyxel switch. My wife is going to hate on me if another computer part shows up. I have an older Netgear cheap 5 port switch in the basement and while my throughput is pretty darn good, I've wanted two more ports a few times and this would solve the issue to repalce the 5 port switch vice adding yet another switch near by (I have done that a few times).

Good luck! Maybe you can do a little "smoke and mirrors" by making some real smoke come from your old netgear that clearly deserves its retirement.

I appreciate your insight!

 

[joeschmuck]

Is this to reduce load on the router so it can perform DHCP and wireless functions unimpeded?

Many routers just don't have good built in switches but you have a very good router so it will likley work very well. What I mean by not good switches is they don't have a large bandwidth capability (slow processor) so you may be limited to 1gpbs total throughput for all your Ethernet ports at the same time vice say 4gbps for a 4 port switch. At this point in time I would not swap out your router for a switch just because you do have a very good router.

Thanks for sharing your full setup, it paints a better picture.

Your setup is very similar to mine however I have a bit more going on. Of the WiFi devices I have a few cell phones, another Roku, another DirecTv, four laptops, a Wii, and a few other things. I didn't include it but I have a second AP directly atached to the first AP via Ethernet cable. This is a temporary situation for now, I need to relocate the second AP and then it will be connected to the 5 port switch in the basement or directly to the Sophos computer, not sure how I want to handle it just yet. And today my main FreeNAS server is actually in the computer room. I was troubleshooting a hard drive issue a few weeks ago and now that all looks good, I can use some compressed air to blow out all the dust and put it back in the basement, maybe this weekend. I'm actually very surprised that the system is still very quiet with the side panels removed. The next hard drives I buy will likely be 7200 RPM so I can plan on things being a bit louder.

 

[Jailer]

I do not have a blazing fast internet connection.

My internet coming to the house is:
100Mbps down and 12 Mbps up

Uhh, your definition of blazing fast and mine are quite different. What I wouldn't give to have a connection that fast.....

 

[joeschmuck]

Uhh, your definition of blazing fast and mine are quite different. What I wouldn't give to have a connection that fast.....

I hear that. I have 3Mbps/768Kbps speed at work and 50Mbps/5Mbps at home.

 

[nojohnny101]

Thanks for sharing your schema @joeschmuck I didn't get the impression from your initial description until I saw the attached image that you had so many switches (it seems almost one for every room!), and all going through the 5 port switch in the basement. That reassures me then that by adding one more switch in my layout (only one outside of the initial one) that I should be just fine. This is backed up by the numbers.

Any reason you have your modem going directly through your sophos computer? does that serve as your firewall which is running on your backup freenas box? then I assume it is passed through to that first 5 port switching the basement?

That is one of the reasons I want to build the pfsense box as what I'm currently using is all "stock configuration" of consumer products. I have tried to make careful selection of components but with many technical articles that I have found outlining the sometime unbelievable network security lapses that are baked into some consumer products, I'd rather go open source. I saw your other thread where you detailed your experience with Sophos so I plan to check that out as well when the time comes.

I guess I should have put that internet speed in context. I am aware of how little broadband competition there is in the U.S., shame that Tom Wheeler didn't get more time to help to improve that. You know the pace of things in Washington

 

[joeschmuck]

Sophos is a powerful firewall product like pfSense. The cable modem has absolutely no firewall protection and serves up two WAN IP's (a feature of my cable provider). This computer runs ESXi and then a VM of Sophos and VM of FreeNAS. My main FreeNAS is also running on ESXi as a VM. I have RSync setup to push backups from my main FreeNAS unit to the backup unit but it's not a full backup of all the data, it's just the important stuff.

I do not run VMs in FreeNAS except for Plex in a jail. I prefer to use ESXi, it is a very mature product and also free and works perfectly well.

Last work on Sophos, there is a replacement for Sophos called XG so if you were to give this company a try, that it the product i'd try. All I can say is this was a pain to setup. Maybe if i were an IT guru it would be simple but that is not the case. If you want just a simple firewall it's easy but you don't install a product like this for a simple firewall, you want all the protection it can provide and that is where it was just a pain in the butt. Now that it's configured all is good. I'm evaluating XG and run up a VM of it periodically on my second WAN IP address. I know a new version will be out soon and I may migrate over if I like it but with version 16 I know it was lacking features. If pfSense is working for you then I'd recommend sticking with something you know. Also, with Sophos it by default is scheduled to update every 15 minutes. On average I get at least 10 to 22 updates a day. These updates could be anything from virues (Sophos has built in A/V software you can distrubute to your PCs) to IP addresses to country codes to lock out. Also you can update the software itself as often as every 30 minutes I think it is, I have mine set to check for an update once a week, once I'm notified an update exists I will check the Sophos forums to see what the update does. Sometimes you will hear of a few complaints that something was broken with an update, generally it's a very specific advanced feature/item that I would never use (I'm not a corporation), and if the update doesn't affect me, I'll skip it.

 

[Chris Moore]

If I recall correctly from my Cisco class years ago, there is a maximum depth of three switches between the router and your most distant device.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[joeschmuck]

If I recall correctly from my Cisco class years ago, there is a maximum depth of three switches between the router and your most distant device.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

I've never heard that, I would expect that to be a latency issue not a physical limitation. I did a quick search and on Cisco forum said 7 switches, and another forum said there was no limit. I'm not saying my very quick searches are true answers but I would expect there to be some minor affect by stacking switches. In a home environment I think the added latency is negligible.

 

[Johnnie Black]

If I recall correctly from my Cisco class years ago, there is a maximum depth of three switches between the router and your most distant device.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

There's no such limit, there's a 7 hop recommend limit for the STP diameter, though it can be tuned for more if needed.

 

[Chris Moore]

I took the class in the late 1990s, so I expect that the guidelines have changed and I don't remember the reason why they were limited.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[nojohnny101]

Well I have added 2 more switches to my network and hard wired a few more things. The most important thing is I have not lost any speed to my FreeNAS box, so I'm happy with it. Revised setup looks like this:

(added devices are in blue)

Thanks everyone for you thoughts and help!

 

[joeschmuck]

Glad things are working as expected. It's good to hardwire what you can and take what you can off WiFi as you have done above.