I've even seen rogue switches hidden behind cubicles built a decade earlier no one knew existed malfunction and flood the network with bad traffic. Try troubleshooting that problem when you can't even physically locate the switch. You should follow best practices and insist on deploying additional Ethernet drops when they're required. Unless you're caught in an incredibly rare case in which the site is a historically registered building and a cable just can't be run, you should run new cabling.
Here's the cost justification: If you don't run new cable and you depend upon daisy-chained connections, trouble will arise -- it's a question of when, not if. This is true even if you go so far as powering the extraneous switches using a battery backup, which helps reduce the number of network failures.
Each time a failure arises, the client's going to suffer an outage, which means staff can't work and that translates to lost revenue. Then the client calls you, which results in a service call. Consider that scenario may repeat itself three of four times over four or so years, and the client's looking at having lost hours of staff productivity and maybe a thousand dollars in switches and service. It's simply more cost effective. Clients won't always understand the cost efficiency at first -- that's your responsibility.
As a consultant, it's your job to help educate the client and help the client make better, more informed decisions. I could even do 2 or 4 from each switch to the core for added redundancy if I wanted. So you see So is daisy chaining two switches in this case still a bad idea? Stacking would give 40 or so gig throughput between switches, but that's overkill -- especially considering there would be only 4 gig to the core and these are client computers -- they're not talking to each other.
What would you do? Go to Solution. View solution in original post. What you are trying to do will work fine for small environment, as long as you don't create a loop on the network, however If daisy chaining is creating a loop, make sure STP is deployed, tested and works as expected.
What are the benefits and drawbacks? Daisy-chaining will provide a single point of failure and if the first switch in the row fails, also the second switch is cut off the network. If you connect both switches to the core you have better redundancy. For even higher redundancy you could connect both switches together if the uplink from one switch fails completely.
Stacking will give you an additional benefit of a less complex switch-management but also combines both switches to a new failure-domain. So, why would you want to daisy chain them as you are not forced to as with two locations that are only connected to each other and there is no cabling from one location to the core? This is actually the type of answer I was looking for " Real designs often don't implement what everyone might consider the best but what's good enough given what you have to work with.
I just was wondering how seasoned engineers would approach it. If it seems that if you're forced to daisy chain, you're just forced to do it As for your other comment, the additional link would just be for additional redundancy. Anyhow, this is a project starting from the ground up so I can order new stackable switches.
In this way, information is transmitted from the central switch to the destination node, with any communication between two switches in a star network controlled by a central one. Star topology is widely used in connecting several gigabit switches together. When connecting Gigabit switches through star topology, a powerful switch such as 40G switch often acts as the core, which then connects to the access switches such as 10G switches.
In this scenario, no loop occurs and all access switches are much closer to the central switch. Switch stack is to combine multiple switches to make them work together for the purpose of providing as many ports as possible. Multiple switches are stacked to form a stack unit. And When stacking multiple switches together, the port density of a stack unit is the sum of the combined ports, greatly increasing the network connectivity.
For example, stack two ST4S stackable Gigabit switch together, which then can provide 48 1GbE port density and nearly get twice switching capacity on the basis of one single switch stack. Usually, S series switches can support up to 6 switches stacked together. Switch cluster can manage the multiple interconnected switches as a single logical device. Hubs would cause trouble, but that is not your case.
This way you need just a few fibers and still retain reasonable chaining. Option 3 inspired by Zoredache: get L3 switches and just route L3 switch everything. IP is designed to deal with even higher numbers of hops.
Although this may not be an option if you are using broadcasts, multicasts, or some exotics. Short of what was already mentioned by Zoredache and ETL; the only other thing I would consider when daisy-chaining network switches is the consideration of how large you want to extend a single broadcast domain within your network. This was more of an addendum. I doubt you would see any timing, processor or routing issues.
Those are usually router issues and wouldn't be caused by excessive switches. That is when you will start to notice connection issues. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?
Learn more. How many network switches can I daisy chain together [duplicate] Ask Question. Asked 6 years, 1 month ago. Active 6 years, 1 month ago. Viewed 95k times. Improve this question. Mike Mike 1 1 gold badge 3 3 silver badges 14 14 bronze badges. I mean if you look at it from a different prospective Bring back memories of the great days of coax ethernet you do. ETL: The question title is poor; the question itself and the answers cover this question entirely.
Add a comment.
0コメント