Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
April 22, 2002 12:00 AM

Gigabit Ethernet Switches

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #24551
Rating: (1)
Gigabit over copper promises an affordable network performance boost

These are auspicious times for companies looking for faster network performance. Because of competition among vendors that are steadily increasing their 1000Base-T switch offerings, Gigabit Ethernet is more affordable and easier to deploy than ever. Unfortunately, assessing which Gigabit Ethernet solution is best suited to your needs isn't always easy. Vendors advertise their switches with the customary performance claims and glossy marketing brochures, but neither gives you a definitive idea of how a certain switch will perform in your particular environment, much less how easy it is to set up and manage. To help you get some inkling of what to expect from the latest 1000Base-T switches, I brought some of them into the Windows & .NET Magazine Lab for a test drive.

At the time of writing, at least a dozen vendors offered a wide range of Gigabit Ethernet switches. To narrow the field, I looked only at managed switches that offer native 1000Base-T ports or can accommodate a Gigabit Interface Converter (GBIC) module for uplink ports. I also looked for switches that represent a cross-section of price and functionality. And because I wanted to simulate a typical network-upgrade scenario between a server room and a remote wiring closet, I looked for vendors that could deliver Fast Ethernet to the desktop with 1000Base-T uplinks that I could pair with a 1000Base-T backbone or aggregation switch. My search led me to the most recent Gigabit Ethernet switch offerings from 3Com, Cisco Systems, and Dell. For those looking for a chassis solution, I tested a Hewlett-Packard (HP) chassis switch with Gigabit and Fast Ethernet switch modules.

The testing was fairly simple. I first conducted a baseline test on the Lab network, in which I performed routine administrative tasks (e.g., software-application deployment) while monitoring latency-sensitive streaming-media applications. I next installed Gigabit Ethernet NICs in the network's servers and in some desktop machines and went through the usual regimen of performance tuning. To simulate an upgrade scenario, I then replaced older Fast Ethernet switches in the Lab's test network with each vendor's Gigabit Ethernet offerings. As I worked with each vendor's switches, I noted how easy they were to configure and manage from basic setup to advanced features such as Virtual LAN (VLAN) configuration, routing, and cost-of-service configuration. Finally, I performed the same tasks and ran the same software as I had in the baseline test to check for a performance improvement.

3Com SuperStack 3
3Com sent a pair of 3Com SuperStack 3 switches for testing. SuperStack 3 Switch 4900 is a Layer 3—capable (with firmware upgrade) aggregation switch. Layer 3—capable means that the switch can also act as a router, implementing switching algorithms based on IP address as well as media access control (MAC) address. The IP address is at the Network layer, or Layer 3, of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) reference model; the MAC address is at the Data Link layer, or Layer 2. Aggregation means that Switch 4900's 12 autonegotiating 1000Base-T ports work well as an aggregation point for other Gigabit Ethernet links, whether they be lower-tier switches or high-performance hosts. Switch 4900 has space for an expansion module that lets you add four additional 1000Base-SX or 1000Base-T ports. It also has a connector for a proprietary 3Com redundant power system.

SuperStack 3 Switch 4400 is 3Com's most recent offering for providing Fast Ethernet connectivity to the desktop along with manageability features. It has 24 autonegotiating 10/100Base-T ports and two slots for modules that provide additional media options or stacking capability with other 3Com switches. As many as eight Switch 4400s can be stacked and managed as one cluster. To provide a Gigabit Ethernet uplink to Switch 4900, I had to install a 1000Base-T module in one of the two available slots.

At about $416 per Gigabit Ethernet port, Switch 4900 is in the middle of the price range of the equipment I tested. The combination of the two SuperStack 3 switches would work well in a network hardware—upgrade scenario like the one I simulated. Switch 4400 could simply replace an older Ethernet switch or hub in a wiring closet, and its gigabit uplink port could connect, through existing Category 5 copper cable, to a Switch 4900 aggregation switch in a server room.

3Com SuperStack 3 Switch 4900
and 3Com SuperStack 3 Switch 4400
Contact: 3Com * 408-326-5000 or 800-638-3266
Web: http://www.3com.com
Price: Switch 4900:
$4995 for 12-port 100/1000Base-T copper managed switch;
Switch 4400: $1900 for 24-port 10/100Base-T
managed switch with Layer 3 functionality and 1000Base-T uplink module

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Mar 09, 2005

    nice article..really knowladgeable

  • Don Jones
    10 years ago
    Oct 30, 2002

    Tom Iwanski's Lab Feature: "Gigabit Ethernet Switches" (May 2002, InstantDoc ID 24551) presents interesting results. I've been testing with FireWire recently, having finally obtained a controller with a chipset that supports full 400Mbps throughput. Whether running on Windows XP or Windows 2000 machines, I've noticed that a full data transfer makes the machine a little jumpy. I've always felt that Windows' maximum throughput was probably a bit less than 500Mbps, and my informal FireWire testing seems to confirm it.



    Your report of Gigabit Ethernet throughput seems to back my theory because in your tests, you hit a wall at just under 500Mbps throughput. I wonder how much of the problem is hardware-related (e.g., bus speeds) and how much is just a limitation of the OS's throughput capabilities.

  • Tom Iwanski
    10 years ago
    Oct 30, 2002

    Your theory might be correct, but Microsoft would disagree. The company claims that the revamped kernel of XP and Win2K is capable of higher throughputs.



    I'm confident that the performance limits I experienced were due to bus limitations because I spoke with several people (an IBM bus engineer in particular) who shared similar results from their tests. A performance limit within the Win2K kernel is likely, but the Lab hasn't done any testing to confirm that claim.

  • paul fitzpatrick
    10 years ago
    May 18, 2002

    I want to compliment you on an excellent article. I found it very useful & informative. More articles in this area would be very welcome.
    Thanks
    Paul

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.