Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:37:24 -0400 From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@gmail.com> To: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass9573@gmx.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: off topic: unmanageable switch? Message-ID: <2b677bda0906190637h45e135bfk5f47762d3c15badb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A3B66ED.40506@gmx.com> References: <4A3B66ED.40506@gmx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 06:22, Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass9573@gmx.com> wrote: > > My list of priorities, with 1 being the most important. > 1. Price > 2. Stability > 3. No "smart" features > OK, this looks like a .1Q frame, let's drop it. > This MAC address is active on many ports, let's drop it. > 4. STP support > Would be nice, just to prevent cabling errors. > There is not gonna be deliberate use of duplicate > links between the switches to increase availability. > Do you require Gigabit ethernet or no? I've had very good experience with Netgear 24-port and 16-port rack mount switches (not the desktop consumer models -- although they too have worked well for me). They have somewhat more robust power supplies than the standard wall-attach transformers, and the FastEthernet models can be had for VERY cheap. (I bought a 24-port model a few years back for just about USD 100.) I've had Netgear switches run without a problem for *years*. Their managed switches, on the other hand, are a nightmare, and I wouldn't use them again if I had the choice. Nikos > //jbaltz -- jerry b. altzman jbaltz@gmail.com www.jbaltz.com foo mane padme hum
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2b677bda0906190637h45e135bfk5f47762d3c15badb>