Results 1 to 13 of 13
-
12-14-2007, 05:48 PM #1Vice Cheese
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Jersey
- Posts
- 2,971
Procurve 2800 vs. 2600 ~ Public vs. Private
The only main difference I see between 2848 (48 ports) and 2650 (48 ports) is the vast difference in thoroughput and switching capacity, 2848 (Throughput: Up to 69.8 mpps; Switching capacity: 96 Gbps) having a higher capacity and 2650 (Throughput: 10.1 million pps; Routing/switching capacity: 13.6 Gbps).
So now, if there is a public switch for http/ftp/ssh and private switch for backups and there are about 35 servers connected to each switch, does it make sense if I go with 2800 for the private switch and 2600 for the public?
The basis of my conclusion is that on a public port with limited bandwidth, a user cannot continuously push close to 100mbps for long before running out of bandwidth. But on a private switch where the user has unlimited bandwidth and can push 100mbps continuously for longer periods and some of the users on the private switch might also have 1gbps port access.
Any inputs are appreciated.Last edited by HNLV; 12-14-2007 at 05:52 PM.
Email: info ///at/// honelive.com
-
12-14-2007, 07:00 PM #2Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 1,431
I'm not too impressed with our HP kit, falls over where older Cisco models do not (a 2848 versus a cisco 3548). Both should do what you need, If you don't do much traffic, then your setup seems fine but I would use the 2848 at the web, web access is more important than internal communications, and I'd imagine backups would be larger packets
-
12-14-2007, 09:52 PM #3Vice Cheese
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Jersey
- Posts
- 2,971
We've deployed a number of 2900 series and I have yet to see a failure, but still, we keep spares in stock.
But please, lets not go off topic and turn this thread into cisco vs procurve.
I just wanted to know if the lower switching/thoroughput for the public and higher thoroughput/switching for the private would make sense.
Back to the second part of your post. Web access is definitely more important, no doubt about it. But if all the 35 servers are on 100mbps, would it really matter to have 96gbps capacity? I mean, I would need to get these switch in bulk so pricing matters here.
Is your concern here that higher thoroughput/switching capacity are built to higher standards and are needed to keep the frontend up? or something else?Email: info ///at/// honelive.com
-
12-15-2007, 12:32 AM #4Managed Hosting Expert
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- North Yorkshire, UK
- Posts
- 4,164
We've deployed masses of both of these series of switches lately (2626 and 2848) in corporate environments and I've been impressed. I don't have prices for the 2650's but I think we paid £1480 for our 2848's which I thought was pretty good.
What you're saying makes sense to me, although for the small price difference I'd get a 2848 on both sides. The switching capacity of both switches is more than enough to do what you want anyway.
Are these servers just bog standard dedicated servers or part of a cluster or something? If it is a cluster there's probably a better way to approach it...
Dan█ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
█ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
█ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
█ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).
-
12-15-2007, 02:14 AM #5Disabled
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Las Vegas
- Posts
- 799
-
12-15-2007, 03:02 AM #6Sec, DC and Virtual Architect
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Posts
- 728
shy of pricing, it takes additional effort to manage multiple platforms and that's been proven over and over again. Since you aren't too worried about heirarchical network design, there's no real benefit (outside of HP's minimal cost) to using both platforms. By using two platforms, you (potentially) have to learn two different feature sets, two different management interfaces and worry about two different products for the purpose of sparing.
Get one platform and marry yourself to it. Your man hours should be less. you could get an extra or two instead of worrying about trying to spare/replace two different lines of products.
-
12-15-2007, 10:03 AM #7Vice Cheese
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Jersey
- Posts
- 2,971
-
12-15-2007, 10:14 AM #8Vice Cheese
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Jersey
- Posts
- 2,971
-
12-15-2007, 10:17 AM #9Vice Cheese
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Jersey
- Posts
- 2,971
-
12-15-2007, 12:11 PM #10Disabled
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Las Vegas
- Posts
- 799
-
12-17-2007, 06:57 AM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2000
- Location
- Sheffield, South Yorks
- Posts
- 3,627
Karl Austin :: KDAWS.com
The Agency Hosting Specialist :: 0800 5429 764
Partner with us and free-up more time for income generating tasks
-
12-17-2007, 11:26 PM #12Sec, DC and Virtual Architect
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Posts
- 728
good thing we don't make a 6600 ;-)
-
12-18-2007, 05:44 AM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2000
- Location
- Sheffield, South Yorks
- Posts
- 3,627
I did think that, but not being a Cisco fan boy wasn't sure, I assumed though that the person who was comparing the two knew what they were talking about, seen as they supposedly upgraded to it, evidently not
Karl Austin :: KDAWS.com
The Agency Hosting Specialist :: 0800 5429 764
Partner with us and free-up more time for income generating tasks