Wireless Router (All in One) vs Switch

[halomaster]

In terms of performance and efficiency, is there a difference between a wireless router and a dedicated switch hooked up to the router?

I read that a wireless router (with a built-in switch and wireless access point) may not perform all functions efficiently as it's doing so many functions at once. Whereas If I hook up the wired clients to the switch, which then is connected to the router, the local intranet among the wired clients is improved, and the router doesn't have to do as much multitasking.

And does this apply to access points as well?

[francescob]

I thought access point/routers had a dedicated (or integrated) switch chip. There are some which don't?

[SnailSlug]

It depends on what's in the router. Usually it's a switch, so nothing is really changed unless it's a crappy chip and you have a gigabit switch or possibly because you have more wired clients than the usual 4 switch ports. Also, wireless bandwidth is shared between all clients, whereas switches give full bandwidth to every wired client.

[+BudMan MVC]

Here is the thing, the backplane on a wireless router for a switch is not going to be all that.  It is going to be a dumb switch at best..  Never seen one that gave you any control over the switch ports at all, now you might be able to put 3rd party on it and get some control like port and duplex or vlans, etc..

 

If you want wire speed (high speed backplane) any sort of mangement then get a actual switch!!  Now it might be a bit high for many home users - but I got a cisco sg300 small business switch and it just plain rocks!!  20GB backplane for 1, so you don't have to worry if your moving stuff between more than a couple of devices maxing out the siwtch capabilities.. 

 

$185 http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-SG300-10-10-port-Gigabit-SRW2008-K9-NA/dp/B0041ORN6U

 

Has 10 ports, not 8 -- 2 of which are combo ports and if you wanted you could add fiber sfps, etc.  If looking to build out your home network, this makes a great core switch at somewhat reasonable home price point.

 

I have never been a fan of all in one sort of solutions, because putting everything together is going to limit your abilities and flexibility.  The wireless portion is most likely not best suited for coverage where your connection comes into the house,  I got a real AP and mounted it in the center of the house in the hall way ceiling for example.

 

All comes down to budget and what you actually want to do - but yes I would say you are much better off splitting vs all in one setup.

[halomaster]

Here is the thing, the backplane on a wireless router for a switch is not going to be all that.  It is going to be a dumb switch at best..  Never seen one that gave you any control over the switch ports at all, now you might be able to put 3rd party on it and get some control like port and duplex or vlans, etc..

 

If you want wire speed (high speed backplane) any sort of mangement then get a actual switch!!  Now it might be a bit high for many home users - but I got a cisco sg300 small business switch and it just plain rocks!!  20GB backplane for 1, so you don't have to worry if your moving stuff between more than a couple of devices maxing out the siwtch capabilities.. 

 

$185 http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-SG300-10-10-port-Gigabit-SRW2008-K9-NA/dp/B0041ORN6U

 

Has 10 ports, not 8 -- 2 of which are combo ports and if you wanted you could add fiber sfps, etc.  If looking to build out your home network, this makes a great core switch at somewhat reasonable home price point.

 

I have never been a fan of all in one sort of solutions, because putting everything together is going to limit your abilities and flexibility.  The wireless portion is most likely not best suited for coverage where your connection comes into the house,  I got a real AP and mounted it in the center of the house in the hall way ceiling for example.

 

All comes down to budget and what you actually want to do - but yes I would say you are much better off splitting vs all in one setup.

Thank for the advice.  I didn't know all wireless clients share bandwidth.  I learned something new.

 

By "dumb switch", do you mean "unmanaged switch"?  I'm content with an unmanaged switch.  If that's the case, then the question here is the router's built-in unmanaged switch vs dedicated unmanaged switch.

 

I want to do DLNA and video streaming from my intranet.  I'm worried that if I plug in my NAS to the router's built-in switch, the NAS won't perform as well when many users are accessing the NAS simultaneously.  Whereas if I use a dedicated switch,  this wouldn't be a problem.

[sc302 Veteran]

unless it was a sonicwall...

[+BudMan MVC]

Yes all wireless is shared bandwidth, be it a wireless router or a true AP - only 1 wireless client can really be talking at a time.  So they all have to share..  If you have dual band you have 2, 2.4 and the 5 -- so clients on 2.4 share that bandwidth and clients on 5 share that bandwidth.

 

If all you need is a dumb switch then no I don't think your going to have much performance difference using the switchports on some all in one wifi router vs some $20-50 gig dumb switch.

[halomaster]

Yes all wireless is shared bandwidth, be it a wireless router or a true AP - only 1 wireless client can really be talking at a time.  So they all have to share..  If you have dual band you have 2, 2.4 and the 5 -- so clients on 2.4 share that bandwidth and clients on 5 share that bandwidth.

 

If all you need is a dumb switch then no I don't think your going to have much performance difference using the switchports on some all in one wifi router vs some $20-50 gig dumb switch.

I think I might get a smart or managed switch.  I like the idea of being able to control the ports.

 

But I'm still confused about the bandwidth for switches.  I read that each client on a switch gets full bandwidth.  I still can't wrap my head around this.  If there are two clients and they are each sending each other a large file simultaneously, will the transfer speed be at full speed?  Or will it be cut in half?

[+BudMan MVC]

So a switch can only do so much bandwidth "backplane"

 

So lets say you have a switch with 8 gig ports, and 2GB backplane.  So if 2 devices where talking it could move packets at full wire speed of 1 gig, if 4 devices where talking it could still move at full wire speed of the ports a to b, and c to d at 1 gig each at its 2GB backplane.  If e and f wanted to also talk at 1 gig, it would not be able to keep up.

 

So

http://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/datasheet/en/GS105v3-GS108v3.pdf

 

 

So the 5 port has 10 gig, so that should be able to handle all the machines 5 of them talking at 1 gig each for sure, etc.  The 8 port version has 16 again - should be good.  But I have had a hard time finding specs on switches in an all in one.

 

Here is a well known newer router specs

http://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC68U/specifications/

 

It lists the wireless bandwidth - highly highly exaggerated with market numbers of raw bandwidth not taking into account all the overhead, etc. etc.  But where does it show the switch backplane?  What is the forwarding rate?  You can see from the gs105 spec sheet it can do

 

- 1000 Mbps port: 1,480,000 packets/sec

 

Now a switch like the sg300 that I bought

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/small-business-smart-switches/data_sheet_c78-610061.html

 

It has rate of 14.88 million packets per second with a 20.0 Gbps backplane, it has 8MB packet buffer while the gs105 has 128KB, etc..  While none of this might ever come into play in a home setup - these are the sorts of differences a better switch brings.  Some of these details you can not even find in the all in one switches - someone would have to benchmark them, etc..

[halomaster]

Awesome. Thanks for the info BudMan.  This is the first time I've learned of backplanes and such.

 

Now I'm learning about stuff like SFP+ and such.  There's A LOT of networking technology that I don't know about yet.

[halomaster]

I have a new question now.  I read up on SFP+ and I think I understand what it does.  If I want to use a fiber cable, then I plug a fiber module into the SFP+ port.  If I want to use a RJ45 cable, then I plug a RJ45 module into the SFP+ port.  Interesting technology.

 

I was on NewEgg on this page.  http://www.newegg.com/Wired-Networking/Category/ID-40

 

There are two categories that I'm confused about: "switch modules" and "network transceivers".  I checked the two links, and they seem to offer the same thing.  What is the difference between the two categories?

[+BudMan MVC]

Yes a SFP would allow you to put whatever type of module you want in, be it fiber or copper. The sg300 ports 9 and 10 are combo, they already have rj45 copper connection so you don't need anything else if you just want to use copper.

SFP stands for (small form-factor pluggable) "transceiver" so not sure where the confusion is?

The old way was GBIC, but you would plug the transceiver into the SFP port

[sc302 Veteran]

The sg300's SFP is still considered a gbic...albeit a mini-gbic.

 

 

 

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

So a switch can only do so much bandwidth "backplane"

 

So lets say you have a switch with 8 gig ports, and 2GB backplane.  So if 2 devices where talking it could move packets at full wire speed of 1 gig, if 4 devices where talking it could still move at full wire speed of the ports a to b, and c to d at 1 gig each at its 2GB backplane.  If e and f wanted to also talk at 1 gig, it would not be able to keep up.

 

So

http://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/datasheet/en/GS105v3-GS108v3.pdf

 

backplane.png

 

So the 5 port has 10 gig, so that should be able to handle all the machines 5 of them talking at 1 gig each for sure, etc.  The 8 port version has 16 again - should be good.  But I have had a hard time finding specs on switches in an all in one.

 

Here is a well known newer router specs

http://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC68U/specifications/

 

It lists the wireless bandwidth - highly highly exaggerated with market numbers of raw bandwidth not taking into account all the overhead, etc. etc.  But where does it show the switch backplane?  What is the forwarding rate?  You can see from the gs105 spec sheet it can do

 

- 1000 Mbps port: 1,480,000 packets/sec

 

Now a switch like the sg300 that I bought

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/small-business-smart-switches/data_sheet_c78-610061.html

 

It has rate of 14.88 million packets per second with a 20.0 Gbps backplane, it has 8MB packet buffer while the gs105 has 128KB, etc..  While none of this might ever come into play in a home setup - these are the sorts of differences a better switch brings.  Some of these details you can not even find in the all in one switches - someone would have to benchmark them, etc..

 

Would "48Gbps Switching Capacity" be another term for backplane specs?

Edit - Would a $100 un-managed switch still be better then a wifi router or a dumb $10-20 switch?

[sc302 Veteran]

yes

depends.  A router is designed to route traffic to the internet, be a barrier between the internet and you, and give wireless access.  If you don't need any of those features, then a switch would suffice.  There is no such thing as a dumb switch, it is either managed or unmanaged.  A dumb switch would be a hub, and you really cant buy those anymore unless you are specifically looking for them.  

 

What a switch does, at a very fast rate, is direct traffic to its intended destination.  It doesn't matter if it is managed or unmanaged, all switches do this...this is what differentiates a switch from a hub..

 

What differentiates a managed switch from an unmanaged switch, is the ability to access some sort of interface to be able to configure ports (whether it be port speed or possible vlan)  This is basically what layer 2 is, a layer 2 switch is your entry level managed switch.  Then you can go up to a layer 3 or layer 4 switch with all different types of routing protocols as well as application (TCP/UDP ports) control...cost also goes up.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

yes

depends.  A router is designed to route traffic to the internet, be a barrier between the internet and you, and give wireless access.  If you don't need any of those features, then a switch would suffice.  There is no such thing as a dumb switch, it is either managed or unmanaged.  A dumb switch would be a hub, and you really cant buy those anymore unless you are specifically looking for them.  

 

This topic relates to me (perfect timing).

 

I maxed my small network ability, and adding streaming PS4 to Playstaton TV is stressing it.

I just purchased this switch (wish I seen this post eailer) - http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/?model=TL-SG1024D

 

I essentially had Modem -> Router 1 (pc-wired) -> Router 2 (Printer) -> Switch w/ all bellow

4 Game Console's, 1 Printer, 1 Stereo, 1 GoogleTV (all wired). 

 

All worked fine, but now that I'm sending PS4 streaming back upstream some performance issues. 

 

My new plan to set up -- Modem (set as gateway) -> Router (and acting as wifi)  -> Switch.

[PGHammer]

yes

depends.  A router is designed to route traffic to the internet, be a barrier between the internet and you, and give wireless access.  If you don't need any of those features, then a switch would suffice.  There is no such thing as a dumb switch, it is either managed or unmanaged.  A dumb switch would be a hub, and you really cant buy those anymore unless you are specifically looking for them.  

Exactly - it is also a lot easier to use old routers as unmanaged switches, depending on how much bandwidth you need.

 

Let's be honest; most routers have more bandwidth available than they will ever use - this is especially true of home and small-business routers.  (And that is without ANY additional switches attached.)

 

Where you get bandwith/backplane starvation is when you add additional switches/hubs that have LESS bandwidth than the primary switch.

 

Further, using an old router as an unmanaged switch is rather easy - simply avoid using the WAN port of the old router (now being used as an unmanaged switch).

 

I have two old gigabit routers I can use as unmanaged switches - a Linksys WRT-310 (semi-bricked  - requires a JTAG to unbrick) and a Netgear WNR3500V1 (single-band N - works fine, but I need dual-band N, which is where the WNDR-3700v4 that replaced it came in). Despite that the router side of one is broke, and the other is picky about what routers it will work with as a WAP (wireless access point - it actually IS something I had considered for the older Netgear) - those same issues are irrelevant to their use as unmanaged switches/backplane extenders.  I don't need IP management - the upstream WNDR3700v4 handles that.  I also don't have to worry about backplane starvation - like the lead router/switch, all the ports - on both routers - are gigabit.  Hence those same unmanaged switches can double as WIRED access points.

[PGHammer]

This topic relates to me (perfect timing).

 

I maxed my small network ability, and adding streaming PS4 to Playstaton TV is stressing it.

I just purchased this switch (wish I seen this post eailer) - http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/?model=TL-SG1024D

 

I essentially had Modem -> Router 1 (pc-wired) -> Router 2 (Printer) -> Switch w/ all bellow

4 Game Console's, 1 Printer, 1 Stereo, 1 GoogleTV (all wired). 

 

All worked fine, but now that I'm sending PS4 streaming back upstream some performance issues. 

 

My new plan to set up -- Modem (set as gateway) -> Router (and acting as wifi)  -> Switch.

The streaming is taxing the wireless side - 5 GHz N?

 

If you have anything ELSE using this band that is not streaming, move it to 2.4 GHz N.  (We have two smart TVs, and moved them both to 5 GHz N by themselves - anything else wireless uses either 2.4-N or G.  This is also very easy to do if the two N bands can have separate SSIDs; normally, this is, in fact, par for the course.)

 

Consoles, PCs, etc. - moved all to wired where feasible (gigabit wired is preferable).  Wired traffic is less taxing on a router than wireless; gigabit is far less taxing than 100mbps. (It is one reason I'm kicking myself when I picked up the Tivo Pemieres I did when they were being closed out on Amazon; the Roamio that succeeded it has not just built-in wireless-N, but gigabit Ethernet as well.)

[+BudMan MVC]

"There is no such thing as a dumb switch, it is either managed or unmanaged. "

Not sure I agree with this 100%, there are different levels of managed to be sure - normally a "smart" switch is not a full managed switch but has some sort of management gui on it that allows you say set the port speeds, set vlans - maybe even some qos features. But has no igmp snooping, or other features you might find in a fully managed switch.

To me a dumb switch is any switch that has no management features at all, no cli, no web gui, no console or even software that can be used to change any setting on it. This your typical home l2 switch. You plug it in and it works, port speeds are auto configured to best speed it can negotiate, etc.

If you can manipulate settings on the then sure its a managed switch - but the level of "management" can be night and day depending on what device your working with. If you can not interact with the switch in any sort of fashion other than plugging in devices then its a "dumb" switch.. Yes it much smarter than your hubs from back in the day, but its still dumb comparatively.

"What differentiates a managed switch from an unmanaged switch, is the ability to access some sort of interface to be able to configure"

This I agree with ;) to me if you say its a dumb switch is for sure unmanaged. If you say it is a smart switch I would assume it has some level of management features. If you say its a managed switch I would assume it has a large feature set. Take a look at the tp-link line they have managed, smart and easy smart lines all with varied levels of features and functionality.

[sc302 Veteran]

Yes there are different levels of managed switches, but if you go by the manufacturers lines of managed switches many of the managed switches are not fully managed switches...they are very limited in their feature set.  I would say that a true managed switch is one that has layer 3 or above capability...but that is not what the manufacturers are selling as a managed switch.  I have layer 2 managed switches, which barely give you any features...how do you do qos with layer2...you don't.  Great I can get to a terminal or gui session to view the switch....but that is a entry level managed switch for you, giving you very basic features. 

 

unmanaged is something that you have absolutely no control over, not even the port speeds.  Show me an unmanaged switch that gives you control over the port speeds or any other layer 2 options...just so you know, I don't consider a layer 2 switch a managed switch...but just because I don't consider it to be doesn't mean the manufacturer also thinks the same way.  One time many years ago, I was looking at a sg200 for a client...it is considered a managed switch...not a managed switch in the way that I would like to manage it.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

The streaming is taxing the wireless side - 5 GHz N?

 

If you have anything ELSE using this band that is not streaming, move it to 2.4 GHz N.  (We have two smart TVs, and moved them both to 5 GHz N by themselves - anything else wireless uses either 2.4-N or G.  This is also very easy to do if the two N bands can have separate SSIDs; normally, this is, in fact, par for the course.)

 

Consoles, PCs, etc. - moved all to wired where feasible (gigabit wired is preferable).  Wired traffic is less taxing on a router than wireless; gigabit is far less taxing than 100mbps. (It is one reason I'm kicking myself when I picked up the Tivo Pemieres I did when they were being closed out on Amazon; the Roamio that succeeded it has not just built-in wireless-N, but gigabit Ethernet as well.)

 

It's all wired. 

 

It wasn't until I was trying to stream PS4 <-> PlaystationTV getting enough lag on it.

Other device still work fine.

 

I think I over complicated my setup (PC tech, but only basic network switch) 

Cable Modem (not as gateway) -> Router A (2 Wifi AP) -> Router B (2 Wifi AP) -> Switch (where all the stuff is wired in to).

 

That why I decided 

Cable Modem (set as a gateway) -> Router A (2 wifi AP) -> Switch

 

Until the PS4 streaming, my network did everything I needed it to, but I'm now demanding more then it can handle, or how I have it poorly configured.

[sc302 Veteran]

How is it wired? Did you buy the cables already made or did you put the ends on the cables yourself?  If you put the ends on it, I have not seen the way you wire your cables and would not trust them.  I would use store bought cables.  The switches in the routers aren't the best, but they should work. 

 

Getting a dedicated switch would be best and have everything wired into that.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

How is it wired? Did you buy the cables already made or did you put the ends on the cables yourself?  If you put the ends on it, I have not seen the way you wire your cables and would not trust them.  I would use store bought cables.  The switches in the routers aren't the best, but they should work. 

 

Getting a dedicated switch would be best and have everything wired into that.

 

Store bought - Monoprice Cat 5e, some 6 later. 

I at one point attempted to color code the HDMI / Network cables to the different devices. 

I plan on measuring to get the correct length and buying all new Cat 6 cables from monoprice and re-doing all of them.

 

The main (long cable) that's running from the router to the switch is getting up there in age, and feared I may of overlooked that. 

[sc302 Veteran]

as long as you have cat5e you are fine, as long as your run is less than 300 feet you are fine. 

 

You should see a improvement using that switch. 

[+BudMan MVC]

"how do you do qos with layer2...you don't."

What?? You don't need layer 3 to do qos.. cos (class of service) is layer 2, dscp is layer 3 or IPP, etc.

There are many things that you can do at a layer 2 level with a managed switch..