Would a 4+1 port setup be a good base to build a router on? If not, I'm not sure I see the logic in that sort of setup; just adding a 5th port to a switch seems kinda meh as a usecase.
A router might make sense. Alternately, so would a switch; 4 10GbE ports for clients, then 1 additional for backhaul to a router or larger 1GbE switch.
It depends on how much overprovisioning is going on. A typical small business grade 1gbps 16 port switch cannot get anywhere near 16gbps of throughput, and that is probably how these are saving so much money too. You have 4 10gig ports... but that does not mean the controller chips can do 40gbps of throughput (80gbps bidirectional!). I would guess that these chips do somewhere in the negiborhood of 12-15gbps on a single controller. Plenty to be substantially faster than a 1gig switch, but you would be hard pressed to get more than 2 heavy connections running at once. So, add a 5th port on a 2nd controller, and then you have a dedicated 10gig port that will always do 10 gig of traffic to a server or larger switch. Then a few intermittant power users go on the not-so-dedicated 10gig ports that share a single controller.
As for a router... that all depends on what you are doing. Most likely not. I mean, your home/business internet connection likely isn't going to be faster than 1gbps for a while yet. You would probably still be better served having a 1gbps router, and use this switch as a go-between for your server and power users.
Finally! I was looking at speeding up my local SOHO network and the 10Gbit prices are just ghastly (50x mroe expensive switches) compared to 1Gbit. Frankly, I was thinking about adding extra lines and using aggregation instead, as I would not need the full 10Gbit.
Link aggregation is for use on machines that have many connections. Each transfer is still limited to the speed of just one connection, regardless of the protocol.
On the other hand, The Dlink DSG-1500 series is pretty inexpensive for 10G. I got a DGS-1510-28X, with 24 1G ports and 4 10G SFP ports, for just under $500 with the SFPs back in December. I just looked up the price, and it is a little cheaper now than when I bought it. The cards I use are available for under $100 each on ebay right now, including the SFPs. It's still a bit pricey, but not absurdly so anymore.
Windows 8 supported SMB Multichannel and so does 8.1 and 10. In fact I think the latest versions of Samba may also support it in their flavor of SMB3+ as well.
I have two GbE links to my switch for my server and for my desktop. I regularly get 238MiB/sec file transfers between both machines. It works across aggregated ports on both of my 16 port switches as well (though I currently have my desktop and server on the same switch, I did test it across switches).
So to clarify, link aggregation for the CLIENT is limited to single port speeds, because if I had my ports aggregated, SMB multichannel would not work. However, link aggregation across switches THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Also you CAN use multiple ports if you have the client support and get >single port speed (with SMB multichannel anyway).
I would love to see a "low cost" 2.5GbE 24 port switch to move my entire network up a step. Really only my desktop and server could leverage it right now, but wireless is moving towards being able to and hopefully USB3 (or 3.1) 2.5GbE adapters are coming as well as integrated 5/2.5GbE ports for laptops sometime.
Right now some of the nicer 802.11ac 3:3 APs and clients can push around 90-100MiB/sec same room performance. Stepping up to 160MHz channels on 802.11ac or 802.11ax in good conditions and/or with MU:MIMO is absolutely going to saturate a 1GbE link.
That's a software side multiple link connection, and is exclusive to SMB 3. That's not link aggregation. Link aggregation is a different animal. LACP and Round Robin still just have one link per stream, so it is narrowed down. Even Microsoft's software network connection linking is narrowed to one connection per stream. The SMB 3 multilink transfers can only take place between machines capable of SMB 3, and only through a SMB 3 link. So, iSCSI or NFS won't be able to take advantage of that at all. That's a pretty narrow set of criteria.
link aggregation is not what it is cracked up to be. Still useful... just not quite what most people think it is.
So at work I have 2 VM servers with 4 1gig ports on back set up as a LAG to a fancy Cisco switch. That is 4gbps of throughput available per switch. Go to transfer a VM between them and... 1gbps throughput. The added benefit is that the servers and switch will load balance that connection, so I can get that 1gbps mostly undisturbed while my users hammer away at my servers. But having 1gbps connection still means I only get 1gbps of throughput between machines... I can just do 4 machines instead of 1.
And for most use-cases that is fine. Sure, it eats up ports like crazy... but 1gig port space is cheap these days, so that isnt a big deal. But at home I do a bit of AV editing on the side. I would like to do it on my NAS with it's nice big storage space available... but I cant. 1gbps is not quite fast enough for modern low-compression 1080p multi-layer video editing. Almost fast enough, but not quite. So I move files to my local SSDs, do my work, and then render to the NAS. Link aggregation does not fix this. I could set up a dedicated 2 or 4 gbps fiber link between my desktop and server... but even that is expensive, and 10gig is dropping like crazy. I think I will just wait for the 10gig and move over all at once rather than a small step now, and a big step to 10gig a few years down the road.
The cards are still running $250+ right now. I doubt they'll get much cheaper for a while. Better to look at SFP based cards, like the Intel X520. The switches aren't much more expensive, and the cards are way cheaper. Plus, the cables are much smaller and much easier to work with.
Huh. The Intel x520-DA1 + cable is only $120 CDN on ebay.ca. That's a lot less expensive than I was thinking it would be. Only $200 CDN for the DA2 version with 2 cables.
Have no need for 10Gbe at home right now, but prices have certainly come down a lot from even just last year.
I would also be eager to setup my home networking 10GBase-T as my ethernet runs aren't in wall but just consolidated to my home office (where any cabling upgrade is a non-issue) and where I would benefit from increased throughput to-and-from my NAS.
Common use case is loading games. Each of my 3 PCs in the house that have Steam all link to a SteamApps library installed onto the NAS volume, as a drive letter. Makes it a lot less of a hassle to update game titles concurrently throughout the house. Additionally, also used for gameplay recordings, etc.
Anyways, my only questions on this solution is:
1) Is Aquantia-based networking robust enough? Intel NICs being the current gold standard, where even Realtek, Killer, and other branded NICs have some issues with latency, packet dropping, features, etc. I'm not sure if Aquantia NICs are worth taking the plunge now, or waiting for better 10GBase-T offerings from Intel.
2) How is the noise on the switch? I see FOUR 3-pin fan headers onboard, and that gives me the sinking feeling that noise-wise, it's not much better than the current (expensive) Netgear XS708Ev2 which runs at 36.7 dBA at favorable room temperatures. https://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches...
If it's that loud, then I won't be biting. Small 40mm fans don't push much air at all even at high RPM and just create more noise than they do heat transfer. It still surprises me how we go from passively cooled 24port 1GbE switches to needing (potentially loud) active cooling for even a 4port 10GbE switch.
There're actually 6 fan headers (2 more on the bottom in addition to the 4 on the right). OTOH these are R&D prototype boards so I'd be hesitant to drawn any conclusions from them; to keep costs down on something that's never going to ship they could've just dropped the new controllers onto a board originally designed for last gen chips instead. If you're only making a few hundred of them in total it's probably not worth the extra expense to edit the no longer needed headers out of the design.
I had a XS708Ev2, and you're right the noise was horrendous. I had it installed in my home network closet and I could still hear it outside the door. Even worse, I bought some low-noise 40mm fans thinking I could just swap them out but the pinout on the 3-pin connector is different than standard so you need to modify the fan plugs. I ended up just running the switch without fans and checked temps often - I had a very light load, it was basically just switching a single 10G workstation, a 1Gb backhaul to wireless, and a 10G fileserver. I've since upgraded to the XS716 so I could reduce clutter and free up space - those fans actually run much more quiet.
I don't know about anyone else, but I absolutely hate the push for wireless networks. Wireless is so insecure and unreliable. Give me a good wired connection any day.
I do have 10Gbe at home. I bought a Dlink DGS-1510-28X, with 24 1G ports and 4 10G SFP ports, back in December. With the SFPs, it was still below $500. I'm not fond of the push for 10G-baseT, as I prefer the optical cables. EM can't interfere with optical lines, and the cables are so much smaller and easier to work with.
Yes, except few people have their house wired for optical and it is also a lot more expensive to do and few things have optical inputs for networking. I priced going fiber for my house out of curiosity and I landed at around $1500 for everything, as well as a lot more power draw and being much more unsightly as I'd need a bunch of optical to Ethernet transceivers, plus the extra cost of the fiber over cat6. I wired my entire house myself (18 drops) at a cost of about $300 for everything and it can support 10GbE speeds (no run is over 70 feet in length and cat6 can support 10GbE to 55 meters, or about 180ft).
Then the question becomes: Do you really need 10Gb everywhere? I just have it to my main machine, file server, and VM host. I don't need 10Gb to my printer, HTPC, Fire TV, or wireless AP.
I certainly don't, but if I am going to go with a standard, I'd like to future proof it. Otherwise I am just in a position where I pulled copper to a location for a LAN drop and 10 years later I am running 10GbE over copper there anyway.
No, I don't see printers needing 10GbE any decade soon. However, laptops may support it (or at least >1GbE) in the next handful of years and there are plenty of times I roam with my laptop or tablet around my house and decide to wire it. Which is why I have LAN drops in every room (except bathrooms).
If you are doing same room, cables on the floor/raceway, sure fine go optical with your bad self. If you are installing permanent runs, you want to make darned sure what you install is future proof, not simply for performance, but what you actually plan to place there. 10 years from how, my kid's bedroom might turn in to my home office, I hope I wired it correctly 10 years ago, or I am doing some drywall work and fishing cables (I did wire all of the rooms with an eye towards current and future needs).
If you're concerned about power draw you almost certainly do *not* want 10GBase-T, Fiber uses a lot less, especially if you have cross-talk (from cheap material or improper DIY wiring).
Of course wired connections are superior, but how practical would it be to connect your laptop or your smartphone to the network with an Ethernet cable every time? Wireless networks are not a replacement for wired networks, they are a complement.
Agreed on that. Wireless works OK for my phones and Fire tablet. However, the push over wireless has encouraged laptop makers to quit putting wired connections into their laptops. I got a Dell Inspiron 5000, and it only has wireless built in. I had to buy a USB 3.0 to gigabit adapter to get a wired connection. I was quite annoyed with this. Then I found my work laptop, a Lenovo Yoga, has the same issue.
I rarely use my laptops away from home, so I have a dedicated station for them with USB keyboard, mouse, wired network, and monitor. So, it works well for me. I absolutely despise the idea of using my laptops on my couch or bed. There are so many things that can go wrong with a laptop in those places. I wish other people would realize this, as I frequently have to fix said laptops after they've been damaged due to inability to remove heat.
Then soon, you won't be buying a new laptop. Actually, most of these things need an adapter. I know that some people go ballistic over the thought of that, but they just have to get over it, as it's the future, like it or not.
The question is how long are your runs? While plastic cable is fairly cheap, it's limited to about 30 feet. Then you need glass, which is at least 10 times as expensive.
I'm pretty satisfied with wireless transfer speeds at the moment. I get 144 mbit/s and that's more than fast enough for residential usage when my small number of computers are working independently of one another and don't require any substantial local-to-local bandwidth. If downstream from my ISP was faster than the abysmal 12 mbit/s I'm getting now, I'd start rethinking that, but I doubt I'd go back to wired ethernet regardless of costs unless I absolutely had to because of signal strength limitations.
That is great that it is enough for you. I grumble when I am hitting only 450Mbps from my laptop to my server over wireless and start considering looking for an Ethernet cable to plug in.
My ISP is a lot faster than the 12Mbps you are getting, but my internet link is my limiting factor anywhere reasonable on my property (and everywhere in my house, except my tablet which maxes at around 90Mbps, which is slower than my internet connection). But I still transfer larger files sometimes to and from my server and when you are throwing 10GiB files from time to time, even the ~1900Mbps (taking in to account overhead) I get over dual GbE Ethernet links doesn't seem all that fast. If I got 144Mbps I'd probably have heart palpitations.
Agreed. I've been on GbE netowrk speeds since 2005. I've got four computers, three Fire TV devices, three tablets, two smartphones all demanding from the internet and my file server. I have them all hard wired except for the smartphones and tablets. My next project will be doing a major upgade for my file server in the next couple of months. 10GbE would be a really cool Christmas present!
Ah, and that's probably where there's divergence in our needs. I haven't bothered with any sort of residential server in quite a few years. There was a time when there was a rack packed full of hardware in a spare bedroom I used for crafts and hobbies, but I found it didn't add much to my life while the costs in power, upgrades, and time kept me away from othere pursuits. Had I not downsized, I'd probably be annoyed at the abysmal DSL router I purchased from my ISP and would crave to go faster. That isn't the case now because I don't have any backend services to worry about. If I need to move a file between computers its transferred one of two ways, via a FTP server app on my phone (word docs, small photos) or a 1TB external hard drive (videos, programs, backups). Sometimes I can't even be bothered to do that and I just e-mail something to myself. It's all about time savings. Over the years, I grew to dislike managing data and coming home from work only to end up doing sysop chores after hours on my own network. Simplification of information technology has given me a lot more recreational time to be outside, do things with family members, and pursue writing and art. Some of those things slip through your fingers in what feels like the blink of an eye and I don't want to have my head buried in the innards of a computer only to end up with a lot of regrets and an insufficiently small retirement account later in life.
I can certainly understand that. I spend more time on sys admin work than I'd like to, but it probably only averages 14-18 hours per year. Usually just a couple of days where I end up sinking half a day in to it because of something like upgrading to Win10, or installing new hard drives and reloading the data to the new array. Then a few days a year where I might be spending a few minutes to an hour doing some little things like making sure updates installed correctly.
It makes my life a heck of a lot better though (and my family's). It hosts iTunes back-ups for my wife and my devices. It hosts back-ups for all of our files (and makes sure they are available on our network). It holds our media library, which saves a TON of time and provides the flexibility to watch movies or listen to music on several different streamers on our network. Sure, I invest a small amount ripping my blu ray and DVD collection, but the time saved in being able to skip previews, menus, etc. probably means over the years I've SAVED time rather than spent time doing it. Plus it makes my collection portable.
This is a fantastic development. While I think the prices are still just a tad high, I'd be very willing to pay ~$100 for a 4-port switch to hook up a NAS and the one PC on my network that would have any use for this, with one port for the uplink and one spare. The biggest problem now is getting a not-crazy-expensive NAS with either a 5+Gbps port or a PCIe slot for adding a NIC.
I would like something with 4 10GbE ports and 4 Ports 1GbE with the possibility to do link aggregation, I would like to use aggregation with my Wifi AP.
Thanks for the article Having eagerly been waiting for the release of cheaper switches, I am starting to wonder when that might happen? 2017? 2018 Q1/2/3? There is a big market for this so not sure why it has been delayed so much?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
vladx - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Great news now I can finally make use of SSDs full speeds at a reasonable price.DanNeely - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Would a 4+1 port setup be a good base to build a router on? If not, I'm not sure I see the logic in that sort of setup; just adding a 5th port to a switch seems kinda meh as a usecase.Black Obsidian - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
A router might make sense.Alternately, so would a switch; 4 10GbE ports for clients, then 1 additional for backhaul to a router or larger 1GbE switch.
CaedenV - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
It depends on how much overprovisioning is going on. A typical small business grade 1gbps 16 port switch cannot get anywhere near 16gbps of throughput, and that is probably how these are saving so much money too. You have 4 10gig ports... but that does not mean the controller chips can do 40gbps of throughput (80gbps bidirectional!). I would guess that these chips do somewhere in the negiborhood of 12-15gbps on a single controller. Plenty to be substantially faster than a 1gig switch, but you would be hard pressed to get more than 2 heavy connections running at once.So, add a 5th port on a 2nd controller, and then you have a dedicated 10gig port that will always do 10 gig of traffic to a server or larger switch. Then a few intermittant power users go on the not-so-dedicated 10gig ports that share a single controller.
As for a router... that all depends on what you are doing. Most likely not. I mean, your home/business internet connection likely isn't going to be faster than 1gbps for a while yet. You would probably still be better served having a 1gbps router, and use this switch as a go-between for your server and power users.
SharpEars - Thursday, June 8, 2017 - link
I beg to differ, almost all switches have fabric that handles full bidirectional throughput on all ports. This isn't the '90s.nagi603 - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Finally!I was looking at speeding up my local SOHO network and the 10Gbit prices are just ghastly (50x mroe expensive switches) compared to 1Gbit. Frankly, I was thinking about adding extra lines and using aggregation instead, as I would not need the full 10Gbit.
dgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Link aggregation is for use on machines that have many connections. Each transfer is still limited to the speed of just one connection, regardless of the protocol.On the other hand, The Dlink DSG-1500 series is pretty inexpensive for 10G. I got a DGS-1510-28X, with 24 1G ports and 4 10G SFP ports, for just under $500 with the SFPs back in December. I just looked up the price, and it is a little cheaper now than when I bought it. The cards I use are available for under $100 each on ebay right now, including the SFPs. It's still a bit pricey, but not absurdly so anymore.
azazel1024 - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
No it isn't and hasn't been for awhile.Windows 8 supported SMB Multichannel and so does 8.1 and 10. In fact I think the latest versions of Samba may also support it in their flavor of SMB3+ as well.
I have two GbE links to my switch for my server and for my desktop. I regularly get 238MiB/sec file transfers between both machines. It works across aggregated ports on both of my 16 port switches as well (though I currently have my desktop and server on the same switch, I did test it across switches).
So to clarify, link aggregation for the CLIENT is limited to single port speeds, because if I had my ports aggregated, SMB multichannel would not work. However, link aggregation across switches THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Also you CAN use multiple ports if you have the client support and get >single port speed (with SMB multichannel anyway).
I would love to see a "low cost" 2.5GbE 24 port switch to move my entire network up a step. Really only my desktop and server could leverage it right now, but wireless is moving towards being able to and hopefully USB3 (or 3.1) 2.5GbE adapters are coming as well as integrated 5/2.5GbE ports for laptops sometime.
Right now some of the nicer 802.11ac 3:3 APs and clients can push around 90-100MiB/sec same room performance. Stepping up to 160MHz channels on 802.11ac or 802.11ax in good conditions and/or with MU:MIMO is absolutely going to saturate a 1GbE link.
dgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
That's a software side multiple link connection, and is exclusive to SMB 3. That's not link aggregation. Link aggregation is a different animal. LACP and Round Robin still just have one link per stream, so it is narrowed down. Even Microsoft's software network connection linking is narrowed to one connection per stream. The SMB 3 multilink transfers can only take place between machines capable of SMB 3, and only through a SMB 3 link. So, iSCSI or NFS won't be able to take advantage of that at all. That's a pretty narrow set of criteria.nils_ - Thursday, June 8, 2017 - link
I think it's also possible with the linux bonding driver, but this needs compatible devices on either end.CaedenV - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
link aggregation is not what it is cracked up to be. Still useful... just not quite what most people think it is.So at work I have 2 VM servers with 4 1gig ports on back set up as a LAG to a fancy Cisco switch. That is 4gbps of throughput available per switch. Go to transfer a VM between them and... 1gbps throughput. The added benefit is that the servers and switch will load balance that connection, so I can get that 1gbps mostly undisturbed while my users hammer away at my servers. But having 1gbps connection still means I only get 1gbps of throughput between machines... I can just do 4 machines instead of 1.
And for most use-cases that is fine. Sure, it eats up ports like crazy... but 1gig port space is cheap these days, so that isnt a big deal. But at home I do a bit of AV editing on the side. I would like to do it on my NAS with it's nice big storage space available... but I cant. 1gbps is not quite fast enough for modern low-compression 1080p multi-layer video editing. Almost fast enough, but not quite. So I move files to my local SSDs, do my work, and then render to the NAS. Link aggregation does not fix this. I could set up a dedicated 2 or 4 gbps fiber link between my desktop and server... but even that is expensive, and 10gig is dropping like crazy. I think I will just wait for the 10gig and move over all at once rather than a small step now, and a big step to 10gig a few years down the road.
Guspaz - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
$120-150 for a 4-port 10gig switch and $30-50 for PCIe adapters? I'd be all over that.dgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
The cards are still running $250+ right now. I doubt they'll get much cheaper for a while. Better to look at SFP based cards, like the Intel X520. The switches aren't much more expensive, and the cards are way cheaper. Plus, the cables are much smaller and much easier to work with.Morawka - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
yeah but you can't make your own cables with sfp unless you got a 3 grand fusion spicerdgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Well, yeah, but when you can get a 2m cable for under $10, why would you bother with making your own?phoenix_rizzen - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Huh. The Intel x520-DA1 + cable is only $120 CDN on ebay.ca. That's a lot less expensive than I was thinking it would be. Only $200 CDN for the DA2 version with 2 cables.Have no need for 10Gbe at home right now, but prices have certainly come down a lot from even just last year.
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
Click the links in the news. Single port Aquantia cards for sub $130 incoming.nils_ - Thursday, June 8, 2017 - link
That depends on the type of cable you use. The direct attach copper cables are pretty unwieldy.JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
I would also be eager to setup my home networking 10GBase-T as my ethernet runs aren't in wall but just consolidated to my home office (where any cabling upgrade is a non-issue) and where I would benefit from increased throughput to-and-from my NAS.Common use case is loading games. Each of my 3 PCs in the house that have Steam all link to a SteamApps library installed onto the NAS volume, as a drive letter. Makes it a lot less of a hassle to update game titles concurrently throughout the house. Additionally, also used for gameplay recordings, etc.
Anyways, my only questions on this solution is:
1) Is Aquantia-based networking robust enough? Intel NICs being the current gold standard, where even Realtek, Killer, and other branded NICs have some issues with latency, packet dropping, features, etc. I'm not sure if Aquantia NICs are worth taking the plunge now, or waiting for better 10GBase-T offerings from Intel.
2) How is the noise on the switch? I see FOUR 3-pin fan headers onboard, and that gives me the sinking feeling that noise-wise, it's not much better than the current (expensive) Netgear XS708Ev2 which runs at 36.7 dBA at favorable room temperatures. https://www.netgear.com/business/products/switches...
If it's that loud, then I won't be biting. Small 40mm fans don't push much air at all even at high RPM and just create more noise than they do heat transfer. It still surprises me how we go from passively cooled 24port 1GbE switches to needing (potentially loud) active cooling for even a 4port 10GbE switch.
DanNeely - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
There're actually 6 fan headers (2 more on the bottom in addition to the 4 on the right). OTOH these are R&D prototype boards so I'd be hesitant to drawn any conclusions from them; to keep costs down on something that's never going to ship they could've just dropped the new controllers onto a board originally designed for last gen chips instead. If you're only making a few hundred of them in total it's probably not worth the extra expense to edit the no longer needed headers out of the design.astrocramp - Saturday, June 24, 2017 - link
I had a XS708Ev2, and you're right the noise was horrendous. I had it installed in my home network closet and I could still hear it outside the door. Even worse, I bought some low-noise 40mm fans thinking I could just swap them out but the pinout on the 3-pin connector is different than standard so you need to modify the fan plugs. I ended up just running the switch without fans and checked temps often - I had a very light load, it was basically just switching a single 10G workstation, a 1Gb backhaul to wireless, and a 10G fileserver. I've since upgraded to the XS716 so I could reduce clutter and free up space - those fans actually run much more quiet.dgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
I don't know about anyone else, but I absolutely hate the push for wireless networks. Wireless is so insecure and unreliable. Give me a good wired connection any day.I do have 10Gbe at home. I bought a Dlink DGS-1510-28X, with 24 1G ports and 4 10G SFP ports, back in December. With the SFPs, it was still below $500. I'm not fond of the push for 10G-baseT, as I prefer the optical cables. EM can't interfere with optical lines, and the cables are so much smaller and easier to work with.
azazel1024 - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Yes, except few people have their house wired for optical and it is also a lot more expensive to do and few things have optical inputs for networking. I priced going fiber for my house out of curiosity and I landed at around $1500 for everything, as well as a lot more power draw and being much more unsightly as I'd need a bunch of optical to Ethernet transceivers, plus the extra cost of the fiber over cat6. I wired my entire house myself (18 drops) at a cost of about $300 for everything and it can support 10GbE speeds (no run is over 70 feet in length and cat6 can support 10GbE to 55 meters, or about 180ft).dgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Then the question becomes: Do you really need 10Gb everywhere? I just have it to my main machine, file server, and VM host. I don't need 10Gb to my printer, HTPC, Fire TV, or wireless AP.azazel1024 - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
I certainly don't, but if I am going to go with a standard, I'd like to future proof it. Otherwise I am just in a position where I pulled copper to a location for a LAN drop and 10 years later I am running 10GbE over copper there anyway.No, I don't see printers needing 10GbE any decade soon. However, laptops may support it (or at least >1GbE) in the next handful of years and there are plenty of times I roam with my laptop or tablet around my house and decide to wire it. Which is why I have LAN drops in every room (except bathrooms).
If you are doing same room, cables on the floor/raceway, sure fine go optical with your bad self. If you are installing permanent runs, you want to make darned sure what you install is future proof, not simply for performance, but what you actually plan to place there. 10 years from how, my kid's bedroom might turn in to my home office, I hope I wired it correctly 10 years ago, or I am doing some drywall work and fishing cables (I did wire all of the rooms with an eye towards current and future needs).
Daniel Egger - Monday, June 12, 2017 - link
If you're concerned about power draw you almost certainly do *not* want 10GBase-T, Fiber uses a lot less, especially if you have cross-talk (from cheap material or improper DIY wiring).Saihtam - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Of course wired connections are superior, but how practical would it be to connect your laptop or your smartphone to the network with an Ethernet cable every time? Wireless networks are not a replacement for wired networks, they are a complement.dgingeri - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
Agreed on that. Wireless works OK for my phones and Fire tablet. However, the push over wireless has encouraged laptop makers to quit putting wired connections into their laptops. I got a Dell Inspiron 5000, and it only has wireless built in. I had to buy a USB 3.0 to gigabit adapter to get a wired connection. I was quite annoyed with this. Then I found my work laptop, a Lenovo Yoga, has the same issue.I rarely use my laptops away from home, so I have a dedicated station for them with USB keyboard, mouse, wired network, and monitor. So, it works well for me. I absolutely despise the idea of using my laptops on my couch or bed. There are so many things that can go wrong with a laptop in those places. I wish other people would realize this, as I frequently have to fix said laptops after they've been damaged due to inability to remove heat.
Hurr Durr - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
Agreed. I refuse to buy a notebook that doesn`t have Ethernet.melgross - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
Then soon, you won't be buying a new laptop. Actually, most of these things need an adapter. I know that some people go ballistic over the thought of that, but they just have to get over it, as it's the future, like it or not.melgross - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
The question is how long are your runs? While plastic cable is fairly cheap, it's limited to about 30 feet. Then you need glass, which is at least 10 times as expensive.BrokenCrayons - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
I'm pretty satisfied with wireless transfer speeds at the moment. I get 144 mbit/s and that's more than fast enough for residential usage when my small number of computers are working independently of one another and don't require any substantial local-to-local bandwidth. If downstream from my ISP was faster than the abysmal 12 mbit/s I'm getting now, I'd start rethinking that, but I doubt I'd go back to wired ethernet regardless of costs unless I absolutely had to because of signal strength limitations.azazel1024 - Monday, June 5, 2017 - link
That is great that it is enough for you. I grumble when I am hitting only 450Mbps from my laptop to my server over wireless and start considering looking for an Ethernet cable to plug in.My ISP is a lot faster than the 12Mbps you are getting, but my internet link is my limiting factor anywhere reasonable on my property (and everywhere in my house, except my tablet which maxes at around 90Mbps, which is slower than my internet connection). But I still transfer larger files sometimes to and from my server and when you are throwing 10GiB files from time to time, even the ~1900Mbps (taking in to account overhead) I get over dual GbE Ethernet links doesn't seem all that fast. If I got 144Mbps I'd probably have heart palpitations.
bigboxes - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
Agreed. I've been on GbE netowrk speeds since 2005. I've got four computers, three Fire TV devices, three tablets, two smartphones all demanding from the internet and my file server. I have them all hard wired except for the smartphones and tablets. My next project will be doing a major upgade for my file server in the next couple of months. 10GbE would be a really cool Christmas present!BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
Ah, and that's probably where there's divergence in our needs. I haven't bothered with any sort of residential server in quite a few years. There was a time when there was a rack packed full of hardware in a spare bedroom I used for crafts and hobbies, but I found it didn't add much to my life while the costs in power, upgrades, and time kept me away from othere pursuits. Had I not downsized, I'd probably be annoyed at the abysmal DSL router I purchased from my ISP and would crave to go faster. That isn't the case now because I don't have any backend services to worry about. If I need to move a file between computers its transferred one of two ways, via a FTP server app on my phone (word docs, small photos) or a 1TB external hard drive (videos, programs, backups). Sometimes I can't even be bothered to do that and I just e-mail something to myself. It's all about time savings. Over the years, I grew to dislike managing data and coming home from work only to end up doing sysop chores after hours on my own network. Simplification of information technology has given me a lot more recreational time to be outside, do things with family members, and pursue writing and art. Some of those things slip through your fingers in what feels like the blink of an eye and I don't want to have my head buried in the innards of a computer only to end up with a lot of regrets and an insufficiently small retirement account later in life.azazel1024 - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
I can certainly understand that. I spend more time on sys admin work than I'd like to, but it probably only averages 14-18 hours per year. Usually just a couple of days where I end up sinking half a day in to it because of something like upgrading to Win10, or installing new hard drives and reloading the data to the new array. Then a few days a year where I might be spending a few minutes to an hour doing some little things like making sure updates installed correctly.It makes my life a heck of a lot better though (and my family's). It hosts iTunes back-ups for my wife and my devices. It hosts back-ups for all of our files (and makes sure they are available on our network). It holds our media library, which saves a TON of time and provides the flexibility to watch movies or listen to music on several different streamers on our network. Sure, I invest a small amount ripping my blu ray and DVD collection, but the time saved in being able to skip previews, menus, etc. probably means over the years I've SAVED time rather than spent time doing it. Plus it makes my collection portable.
Valantar - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 - link
This is a fantastic development. While I think the prices are still just a tad high, I'd be very willing to pay ~$100 for a 4-port switch to hook up a NAS and the one PC on my network that would have any use for this, with one port for the uplink and one spare. The biggest problem now is getting a not-crazy-expensive NAS with either a 5+Gbps port or a PCIe slot for adding a NIC.nils_ - Thursday, June 8, 2017 - link
I would like something with 4 10GbE ports and 4 Ports 1GbE with the possibility to do link aggregation, I would like to use aggregation with my Wifi AP.ouroborus - Thursday, August 10, 2017 - link
Alright. When will this be available on Newegg or Amazon?thefutureishere - Monday, November 13, 2017 - link
Thanks for the articleHaving eagerly been waiting for the release of cheaper switches, I am starting to wonder when that might happen?
2017? 2018 Q1/2/3?
There is a big market for this so not sure why it has been delayed so much?