Network Switch Help

[Acrozi]

Hello everyone,

 

Recently, I just got new lines ran of ethernet cable to different rooms in my house and now I have a total of 7 wired connections to the router but the router only has 4 ethernet ports. I know I need a switch but is there any switch that would keep the 250mbps ran to each and every one of those connections? Because from what I understand, the more connections, it will divide the total speed by the number of connections to the switch and I would like to know if there is a way to keep 250mbps to each connection.

 

If you know any products that can help me accomplish this too, please feel free to link them or what they are called.

[mMontana]

If any run of ethernet cable is done properly, 1gbps can be achieve for any port.

For having a gist of what any switch can do, look for "switching capacity". If that specs is missing, I won't put that switch in my top list for buying.

Last but not least: 8 + 4 = 12, but at the end due to the uplink between router and switch, you'll have only 10 ports. I'd also consider, if you're going to put more devices close to the router, a 16 port switch.

Don't buy 10/100 switches!

[Agall]

On 8/21/2023 at 8:09 AM, Acrozi said:

Hello everyone,

 

Recently, I just got new lines ran of ethernet cable to different rooms in my house and now I have a total of 7 wired connections to the router but the router only has 4 ethernet ports. I know I need a switch but is there any switch that would keep the 250mbps ran to each and every one of those connections? Because from what I understand, the more connections, it will divide the total speed by the number of connections to the switch and I would like to know if there is a way to keep 250mbps to each connection.

 

If you know any products that can help me accomplish this too, please feel free to link them or what they are called.

They make 8 port unmanaged switches designed for that sort of thing. Proper managed switches get into hunderds/thousands of dollars (I have two $9k switches arriving soon, as an example...)

 

NETGEAR 16-Port 10/100/1000 Mbps Gigabit Unmanaged Switch Blue GS116NA - Best Buy

An example of a 16 port Gigabit unmanaged switch.

 

You're unlikely to need more than 1Gb unless you're already knowingly exceeding such between two devices (like you have two 2.5Gb or 10Gb devices you need the fastest communication between), otherwise 1Gb is more than plenty in my opinion.

 

The reason you'd want a managed switch is to do VLANNing/subnetting between those devices with certain access rules. If you just need them to be able to talk to one another and/or see the same WAN connection, then that's plenty.

 

Technically you can get slightly-managed small switches, but they're generally quite niche in their application and usually require some sort of setup. Unmanaged switches are truly plug and play.

[Sunshinewulf]

8 port gigabit switches are pretty cheap anymore. Each port provides 1g speeds. You would have 1 uplink to your router and the rest for the devices on your network. Should be able to find multiple for under $20. Just don’t daisy chain switches: ie a switch plugged into a switch that’s plugged into a switch. This sounds like the solution you are looking for, without more info specific to your network devices and usage. 
 

if you are looking for higher speed solutions (doesn’t really sound like it), you can find some 2.5g switches in the $120 range. The only reason, I specifically, would go this route is if you have a specific need for better than gig speeds.

[tkitch]

So you're getting the way networking works wrong:

 

If your internet is 250 mbps, then you get 250mbps of internet to the devices that are actively using internet.  It's not split "per port" it's only split as it's used.

If someone's using 20mbps for netflix, then other devices get ~230mbps to do stuff elsewhere.  

 

Just buy a small switch and expand your network. 

[mMontana]

Just now, Agall said:

Managed switches get into hundreds/thousands of dollars

Actually... no. Some simple/"smart managed" switches costs into ballroom of 100 USD or less (ex. Zyxel GS1200-8 or NetGear GS308E)

[Agall]

55 minutes ago, mMontana said:

Actually... no. Some simple/"smart managed" switches costs into ballroom of 100 USD or less (ex. Zyxel GS1200-8 or NetGear GS308E)

Sure, technically those are 'managed', however you even provide the caveat of 'simple/smart managed'. I however wouldn't recommend those to someone who would be better off with an unmanaged switch. 

[mMontana]

I can understand why, but with remote access to the network, even the lower-capability management can help you understand if the device is on or not... without going into the closet or ask someone to do that for you.

[Acrozi]

8 hours ago, Agall said:

They make 8 port unmanaged switches designed for that sort of thing. Managed switches get into hunderds/thousands of dollars (I have two $9k switches arriving soon, as an example...)

 

NETGEAR 16-Port 10/100/1000 Mbps Gigabit Unmanaged Switch Blue GS116NA - Best Buy

An example of a 16 port Gigabit unmanaged switch.

 

You're unlikely to need more than 1Gb unless you're already knowingly exceeding such between two devices (like you have two 2.5Gb or 10Gb devices you need the fastest communication between), otherwise 1Gb is more than plenty in my opinion.

 

The reason you'd want a managed switch is to do VLANNing/subnetting between those devices with certain access rules. If you just need them to be able to talk to one another and/or see the same WAN connection, then that's plenty.

Okay, I see how it works now. At most, I'd only ever need a total of 1 gig speed connections. We currently pay $50 a month for 250 up/down and it's only $20 more to get a whole gig, so in case we ever do, I just want to have the equipment already. So would something like this work as well for what I need?

[Sunshinewulf]

3 hours ago, Acrozi said:

Okay, I see how it works now. At most, I'd only ever need a total of 1 gig speed connections. We currently pay $50 a month for 250 up/down and it's only $20 more to get a whole gig, so in case we ever do, I just want to have the equipment already. So would something like this work as well for what I need?

Yupper. I personally have used this exact switch so many times, I lost count. Simple. Cheap. Unmanaged switch. Plug stuff in and everything should just work. 

[Agall]

22 hours ago, Acrozi said:

Okay, I see how it works now. At most, I'd only ever need a total of 1 gig speed connections. We currently pay $50 a month for 250 up/down and it's only $20 more to get a whole gig, so in case we ever do, I just want to have the equipment already. So would something like this work as well for what I need?

 

18 hours ago, Sunshinewulf said:

Yupper. I personally have used this exact switch so many times, I lost count. Simple. Cheap. Unmanaged switch. Plug stuff in and everything should just work. 

Yup, as Sunshinewulf described.

 

I have several of these 5-8 port unmanaged switches, some that are just RJ-45 splitters for WAN connections and some that host little subnetworks. They work as intended, being each device can communicate with each device, including if there's one LAN connection from a router to a bunch of devices.

 

You should be able to saturate the 1Gb/sec connection from your ISP, assuming you can actually get 1Gb/sec. My ISP connection is '1Gb/sec', however I only see ~850Mb/sec maximum, most the time being limited by the server I'm connected to. However, that should afford more simultaneous connections at high bandwidth, but I wouldn't expect 1Gb/sec from even Steam, Battle.net, Origin, etc off a single connection.

[Alex Atkin UK]

15 hours ago, Agall said:

I wouldn't expect 1Gb/sec from even Steam, Battle.net, Origin, etc off a single connection.

Steam is pretty good when downloading games fresh, but updates it spends more time patching the game than how long it takes to download the patch.  Of course it depends how much bandwidth your ISP really gives you, as there are any number of things along the path that can cause it to drop below Gigabit.

 

Its complicated how they market Gigabit as some ISPs its about the RAW speed (before protocol overheads), others such as cable may actually deliver 1.1Gbit but you'd need the modem, router and switch to be 2.5Gbit to push actual 1Gbit speeds real-world (after overheads).

For most people it just not worth the cost to have 2.5Gbit in order to squeeze an extra 100Mbit out of the Internet connection.

Basically for reference, a Gigabit network will carry about 930Mbit of real-world data, due to network protocol overheads.  Its why in the UK ISPs usually advertise it as 900Mbit instead as unlike say the US they are under pressure to advertise the average real-world speed, not the headline "technically its this" speed.

[Lurick]

18 hours ago, Agall said:

You should be able to saturate the 1Gb/sec connection from your ISP, assuming you can actually get 1Gb/sec. My ISP connection is '1Gb/sec', however I only see ~850Mb/sec maximum, most the time being limited by the server I'm connected to. However, that should afford more simultaneous connections at high bandwidth, but I wouldn't expect 1Gb/sec from even Steam, Battle.net, Origin, etc off a single connection.

Just piggybacking off the above but at least with Steam it can come pretty close to saturating my 2Gbps connection no issues. Usually hovers around 220MB/s depending on the download, sometimes a bit closer to 230MB/s

 

Obviously not a real/good reason to go above gigabit for probably 99.999% of users though

[Agall]

22 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Just piggybacking off the above but at least with Steam it can come pretty close to saturating my 2Gbps connection no issues. Usually hovers around 220MB/s depending on the download, sometimes a bit closer to 230MB/s

 

Obviously not a real/good reason to go above gigabit for probably 99.999% of users though

How often do you see limits well below the maximum from various websites/platforms? Out of curiosity, since the highest I can get in my area is Gigabit.

[Lurick]

23 minutes ago, Agall said:

How often do you see limits well below the maximum from various websites/platforms? Out of curiosity, since the highest I can get in my area is Gigabit.

Generally most sites are definitely well below that, usually 500Mbps to gig depending on the file and ramp time.

[Alex Atkin UK]

21 minutes ago, Agall said:

How often do you see limits well below the maximum from various websites/platforms? Out of curiosity, since the highest I can get in my area is Gigabit.

Game downloads are usually really fast, but general usage is all over the place.

 

I was really pleased to see NVIDIA seemed to upgrade their site as downloading the drivers used to be annoyingly slow, but now it seems to reach at least 600Mbit.  It may be uncapped but its downloaded before it gets to ramp to full speed.

[Needfuldoer]

All you need is a simple, unmanaged Gigabit Ethernet switch with enough ports for all your devices. They're all basically the same, take your pick.

[Agall]

2 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Game downloads are usually really fast, but general usage is all over the place.

 

I was really pleased to see NVIDIA seemed to upgrade their site as downloading the drivers used to be annoyingly slow, but now it seems to reach at least 600Mbit.  It may be uncapped but its downloaded before it gets to ramp to full speed.

Nvidia drivers are my usual bandwidth test since its an easy 600MB file to play with when testing FTP or such.

 

[Alex Atkin UK]

19 hours ago, Agall said:

Nvidia drivers are my usual bandwidth test since its an easy 600MB file to play with when testing FTP or such.

 

Browser downloads are always the real test since its a single download which will also get throttled by your ISP if they are overloaded.  Game downloads are multi-threaded (download multiple files over multiple connections at the same time) so will tend to try to push as much data as you can handle.

 

Worth noting though, speedtest.net can also be forced into single-threaded mode, but a shifty ISP could easily prioritise speedtest servers to hide issues.  How things work in real-world usage is always the true test.