Help with SFP(+)

[oharag]

I'm just getting into home networking. I'm very confused about SFP(+) connection schemes.

I bought a MS-01 (I got my shipping notification - we will see if it finally gets to my home). So, this has QNTY 2 SFP+ connectors on the back that support Link Aggregation. I'm hoping for my UGreen 6 bay NAS with QNTY 2 10Gbe RJ45 connectors that support Link Aggr. So, I would rather run Copper than optical due to cost, and in my mind copper has less chance to become damaged during running cable. So, I've been looking at a Switch (I guess managed - hopefully POE(+)) that has QNTY 6 10Gbe ports - 2 for MS-01, 2 for NAS, 2 for two computer connections. I found this:

Amazon.com: TEROW 22 Port Multi-Gigabit L3 Managed Switch| 16 x 2.5G Poe Ethernet Ports, 6 x 10G SFP+ Ports| @250W/52V| IEEE802.3af/at| Support QoS,Extend/VLAN Mode/Rackmount : Electronics

This is similar to the ieRON one posted on this forum somewhere.

Further down the page it says:
01 - Q Why switch turn off when SFP is connected (CHinese English)?
A. Our SFP port only support 1.25G and 10G Optical Fiber Module.

So, I thought SFP allowed for both RJ45 Copper and Optical SFP modules. Is this not the case?

I've looking high and low for my perfect switch - 6 10GBE ports (hopefully copper) - and maybe 8-10 2.5 GBE copper with POE capability. I looked at Alibaba - man that sucks trying to find anything. I found the one above on Amazon. Maybe more 2.5 Gbe ports than what I want/need. Since this is Chinese - there really isn't much info to go by reliably. Any thoughts - if I buy the one linked above - will I be able to purchase SFP RJ45 modules and it will work in my scenario?

Also - any other recommendations would be appreciated for my dream switch.

I found this as well:

Amazon.com: QNAP 12-Port 10GbE Half-Width Rackmount Layer 2 Managed Switch with 8 x 10GbE SFP+ and 4 x 10GBASE-T Ports (QSW-M3212R-8S4T-US) : Electronics

Besides cost - it doesn't have POE and having all 10GBE ports is nice - but not necessary in my setup. I like that it's QNAP. My same questions applies to this one - Can the SFP ports in QNAP support both RJ45 and Optical?

Thanks for the help.

 

[sic0048]

I would say that running optical cables will be better. First, the total cost is usually less than copper. This is because the SPF+ optical transceivers are much less expensive than DAC cables or SPF+ ethernet transceivers. Fiber optical cable is not expensive either (a 98' patch cable is around $20 and shorter lengths are obviously less expensive). Second, most people find that using fiber is easier because many devices have a lot more compatibility issues with copper than fiber for some reason. I can't speak specifically for the equipment you are trying to use, but there are lots of posts on this forum where people struggled to get a DAC to connect, but swapping over to fiber immediately fixed their connection problem.

I know fiber can be daunting for the beginner. I an no expert myself, but learning enough about fiber to connect my switches and a few computers together in my network was easier than I thought. I would suggest that you stick to duplex fiber with LC/LC ends. Then look for fiber transceivers that work with your equipment that also have LC/LC connectors. I feel that LC/LC is the most common termination type used in these situations. The "OS" spec probably doesn't matter much in a home network because the distances aren't that great. But I'd probably suggest OP3 was a good mix between specs and price. I don't think anything over OP3 is really going to be a benefit to most home users, but it's obviously fine to use and not that much more expensive. Again, I'm no expert however, so perhaps other people will chime in and give better advice.

Long story short, don't be afraid to use fiber. Just buy premade fiber LC/LC patch cables in the lengths that you need and get optical transceivers that have LC/LC terminations.

 

[oharag]

@sic0048

Thanks for reply.

Any thoughts on SFP(+) only accepting optical transceivers or RJ45 for that matter? Is this such a thing? I have seen the transceivers that come in either RJ45 or optical. Again, my thoughts are if I purchase a switch with SFP(+) ports I can choose the type of cable to use. Some of the devices I'm ordering, or will eventually connect, only have RJ45 connections. So, I guess I would lean more towards RJ45 as opposed to optical. I have worked with optical fibers in the past - the bend radii are not so generous - it seems optical is a bit more fragile - and any crack/kink would impede performance, and I already have the CAT cable I ordered for running through the home. If I could find only a switch that had the RJ45 connections instead of SFP(+) I would go this route. Most switches (and now some computers) come with only SFP(+) connections. The switch I listed above states: " Our SFP port only support 1.25G and 10G Optical Fiber Module". I don't want to sink $$$ into a switch, and then have to toss it out because I can't use RJ45 transceivers.

 

[alaricljs]

Consider RJ45 transceivers to be an occasional convenience device. They are technically out of spec due to the TDP involved and pretty much only enterprise switches are over-engineered enough to not care since they have lots of reactive cooling. I'd expect any smaller brand switch that doesn't mention compatibility with them to choke either up front or a few months down the road.

 

[oharag]

@alaricljs

Okay so I'm learning thanks for response.

But if you look at most if not all consumer level computers they have RJ45 connectors built in. It seems unique that the MS-01 has SFP+ ports built in - but also has RJ45 2.5Gbe which seems standard. So I guess I like the thought of SFP+ transceivers - but what is the use of SFP+ if it's not recommended to use RJ45 copper?!?!?!?! I mean then just go with fixed optical connectors. SFP+ seems expensive - you have to buy transceivers - $25-$50 on top of the cable itself. And - BTW - it's not recommended to use RJ45 even though we sell it anyway. Weird.

I get Optical is better - longer runs - runs cooler - but for the home user - and I would say 80-90% of all devices for the home network come with RJ45 connectors I'm not a big fan of optical.

So if I were to go with Optical out of router (SFP+) would you recommend the following Optical to RJ45 to make the transition? If yes - then is there any loss in data rates using these and any other considerations/concerns? On top of this - FRACK more cost to my system. SFP+ seems like a expensive headache.

Copper to Fiber Media Converters-Media Converters, Extenders-Networking - FS.com

 

[alaricljs]

10G-T (rj45) switches exist and are in-spec of course.

 

[oharag]

10G-T (rj45) switches exist and are in-spec of course.

Yeah so I think I've been begging STH peeps for recommendations. Hunting and pecking is a pain.

Here is what I found:

CRS312-4C+8XG-RM - User manuals - MikroTik Documentation

help.mikrotik.com

or

https://www.amazon.com/QNAP-QSW-3216R-8S8T-US-Half-Width-high-Speed-Networking/dp/B0CJ44SV3N/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3EBPGD8JR1WPZ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.rSuVyKjxco99eEXspXFs7ayE5i7nNBe5WlsAF6pbkOpZ5yFISHupw9gb1my9IeCRZAU64hoaSPoyWVi1v_NWdmwOXuPI-MgWJoqRaww9oTOGiM9qOE4Spf0CeHsXQR8_HaU-QTjiTEDnnlCfRSfSWMKHqS3TQm6DzxLwxRb37vlyIpv2nZcSBMrUaPBmvuSKSx3SO4NM83ZdN-G5OEJxoiYB7zTDmOYtC_Jl1fIErLs.dhW2L16VHSb0HnKd7txPwO07dJ0sQJzJhQxAppG5ymg&dib_tag=se&keywords=qnap%2Bswitch&qid=1714397091&sprefix=qnap%2Bswitch%2Caps%2C72&sr=8-4&th=1

I have a MS-01 with SFP+ so I see doing link aggregation to the switch (QNTY 2 optical)
I hope to get ungreen 10gbe RJ45 and connect via link aggregation (QNTY 2 RJ45)
I then need to connect at least two computers via 10Gbe RJ45.1

I need to connect other devices (Xbox - PS5 - Asus XT8 - 3X TVs - 3X AppleTV - etc...) so it would be okay to get maybe a 8-10 port 2.5Gbe. Standard 10gbe+2.5Gbe routers seem to have maybe 2X10Gbe plus 6-8 2.5Gbe. For more 10gbe and looking for this config I get the Chinese switches - but they all have 10Gbe SFP+ and 20+ 2.5 Gbe RJ45 connections. It would also cool to try POE+ as well for future camera additions.

I guess there is no PERFECT product. I don't mind combo products - but I love simplicity - one solution to do it all.

 

[sic0048]

I need to connect other devices (Xbox - PS5 - Asus XT8 - 3X TVs - 3X AppleTV - etc...) so it would be okay to get maybe a 8-10 port 2.5Gbe.

I'm sure you are aware, but none of those devices actually support speeds faster than gigabit ethernet. Well, the Asus XT8 has a 2.5gb WAN port, but all the LAN ports are gigabit only. Spending $$$ money to get 2.5gb ports for all of these devices is a waste of money IMHO. 2.5gb is arguably the most expensive networking speed to implement right now because it is just now becoming popular. You can actually implement 10gb speeds on your network for a fraction of the cost of 2.5gb speeds because 10gb devices have been around for much longer than 2.5gb.

Honestly I would suggest that you slow down and learn about this stuff by buying something small/cheap. If you eventually want to connect your computers via SFP+, you are going to need to purchase SFP+ networking cards (the used market is great for things like this). I would suggest you get a network card or two and connect two computers together via SFP+ or connect them to the MS-01. Heck, try both optical and copper connections if you want (one each) to see which is easier and cheaper.

Once you get a couple connected devices under your belt, you will have a lot more knowledge about how you will need to set up your system. This is just my opinion, but I think if you decide to jump right into the deep end without learning to swim in the shallow end first, you are going to waste a lot of time and money on stuff that ultimately doesn't work like you expected.

PS - As far as SFP+ optical transceivers are concerned, I suspect most of us buy used ones for anywhere between $4-12 each.

 

[oharag]

So as you stated - the Asus does accept 2.5 Gbe. I do realize that most of my devices only accept 1 Gbe - but my goal is future proof my network for future expansion. I would rather buy up and do it once than have to add at a later date. So as for cost - I guess I can save some $$ going with 10gbe and 1 gbe switch, but I'm willing to spend some money up front - like run CAT6A once even though I may be connecting 2.5 or 1 gbe devices.

My two computers will be 10 GBE - MS-01 10GBE and NAS 10 GBe. Everything else is at most 1 Gbe.

I believe some of the transceivers can run at multiple speeds (10/5/2.5/1.5 Gbe) so even I spend money on these transceivers they can be used across my network. If further down the road future devices will release with faster and faster network connections. I believe 2.5 seems to be coming on strong - I wonder if we will even go 5 and instead go right towards 10 Gbe. I think companies are releasing that even in the home - consumers are needing faster delivery methods - 4K Streaming etc...

 

[nexox]

2.5GBaseT tranceivers are not a good idea if your switch doesn't support 2.5G on the SFP+ ports, if the switch sees a 10G link you end up with massive packet loss and often less than 1G bandwidth in one direction. The highest quality 4K video you can get at home would just about run over 100Mbps ethernet, and internet streams are often down in the 10-20Mbps range.

If you just have two 10G systems then you'd probably be best off wiring them directly together and leaving your 1G network until you have a real need to upgrade it - prices are always dropping and hardware is always improving so there's really no reason at all to buy network equipment before you need it.

 

[sic0048]

I believe 2.5 seems to be coming on strong - I wonder if we will even go 5 and instead go right towards 10 Gbe. I think companies are releasing that even in the home - consumers are needing faster delivery methods - 4K Streaming etc...

Don't confuse what is going on in the consumer market as "cutting edge." 10gb came out in 2002. It's so old that companies have been offloading their 10gb gear for a long time while they have moved to faster technology (40gb, 100gb, and faster). That's why it is so inexpensive to acquire 10gb gear.

You can already stream multiple 4k shows with internet speeds well under gigabit due to the data compression. The only reason 2.5gb is hitting the market now because we have just recently entered a time where internet speeds might be faster than gigabit. The truth is that 95% of the population will never need that kind of speed out of the internet for a long time to come. Maybe gamers and youtubers, but that is about it. A family of 4 streaming and browsing the internet will never get close to needing that kind of speed. Of course internet providers will keep pushing faster speeds (and higher fees) and people will keep buying it because "faster is always better", right???

 

[alaricljs]

Another big reason for 2.5Gb to arrive on motherboards and the like is the advantages of marketing... bigger number better.

"Future proof" is not really doable, but fiber is the nearest it gets, not multi-gig capable copper.

 

[oharag]

Another big reason for 2.5Gb to arrive on motherboards and the like is the advantages of marketing... bigger number better.

"Future proof" is not really doable, but fiber is the nearest it gets, not multi-gig capable copper.

Crimney - how long did it take for Mobos to move to USB. Heck USB-C seems to be the norm - and yet I see a ton of mobs with USB-a connections. I remember Serial and Parallel ports still being on Mobos for a long time.

My dream Mobo would have Wifi7 - USB4/TB4 and at least 2.5 Gbe at the most.

Why 2.5 Gbe - moving large files across the network - from Computer to NAS.

I understand 1 Gbe is fine ATM - but but - when I'm 99 and 10 Tbe comes out so I can teleport to the Mars Colony - BTW at this time Mars will have been terraformed to at least support breathing the atmosphere without a helmet - and the Spacers out in the Belt have not yet attacked Earth.

 

[nexox]

I believe what most people have suggested is that if you need more than 1G you should go straight to 10G, because 2.5G is new and expensive, even if you do need a couple 10GBaseT transceivers for an existing CAT6 run. If you have a bunch of CAT5E installed in your walls then I guess settle for 2.5G, otherwise it's not very attractive.

 

[blunden]

This is because the SPF+ optical transceivers are much less expensive than DAC cables or SPF+ ethernet transceivers.

Unless you find a really good deal on used fiber transceivers (mostly not a thing outside the US in my experience), DACs are definitely cheaper. Fiber cable + transceivers are definitely cheaper than 10GBASE-T transceivers though, that's for sure.

I can't speak specifically for the equipment you are trying to use, but there are lots of posts on this forum where people struggled to get a DAC to connect, but swapping over to fiber immediately fixed their connection problem.

Yes, DACs can be a bit problematic since what you're doing is basically extending the short internal connection to the SFP+ port that is normally just a few centimeters to suddenly be up to 7 meters. Based on what I've learned in recent months, to do that properly the switch needs to calibrate its signaling based on cable length etc. With active transceivers, that's not a problem since they take care of the "making sure the signal reliably reaches the other end" part.

Any thoughts on SFP(+) only accepting optical transceivers or RJ45 for that matter? Is this such a thing?

There are a few possible reasons.

Power consumption often tend to be significantly higher with 10GBASE-T RJ45 transceivers, as already mentioned, so cooling can be a concern.

My understanding from watching people implementing OpenWrt support on Realtek switches, supporting the RJ45 transceivers is also more complex. For instance, it requires you to load appropriate drivers for the PHY chip contained inside the transceiver. You'd expect most of that to already be implemented in the reference code from the switch chip manufacturer, but maybe they ran into issues.

With all that said, I wouldn't necessarily trust them that it wouldn't work. It's guess it's simply not a use case they want to bother supporting.

 

[sic0048]

Why 2.5 Gbe - moving large files across the network - from Computer to NAS.

If you are really moving such large files across your network that faster than 1gb is worth it, then go straight to 10gb. But the truth is that unless you are a video editor or otherwise have a job that deals with large data sets, the average home user isn't moving around that kind of data on a regular basis at this point in time. I realize that is a huge stereotype and there will always be fringe users that move a lot of data, but it's generally the exception to the rule.

I understand 1 Gbe is fine ATM - but but - when I'm 99 and 10 Tbe comes out so I can teleport to the Mars Colony - BTW at this time Mars will have been terraformed to at least support breathing the atmosphere without a helmet - and the Spacers out in the Belt have not yet attacked Earth.

IMHO, future proofing on a hardware basis (infrastructure is different if there is a limited opportunity to install it before access is cut off) is a fools errand. "Future proofing" just means you are overpaying for features you can use yet. The cost of those features will always be cheaper in the future, and the technology will always be improving as well. Why would anyone buy something technology related today that they don't plan to use for the foreseeable future? It's always better to wait until you actually need to use it. You'll either pay less for it, end up getting something that's generationally better, or both.