Recommendation for a decent 10G Base T 6+1 or 8 Switch (EDIT:and SMB Multichannel)

[MiguelC]

Hi, as the topic header explains I'm looking for a recommendation on alternatives for a decent switch with at least 6x10G Base T (copper) ports and one 1GB port , I know most likely im restricted to a 8 port 10G Base T.

I'm hardly an expert so excuse me If i'm not using the proper terms.

I need to connect in a smal island (room) 1 MacPro 2019 (can aggregate 2x10Gbe) , 1 Synology 1821 (with expansion borad that allows 2x10Gbe that too can be aggregated) 1 MacPro 2018 (2x1Gbe that can also be aggregated) but this last one will probably be upgraded soon to a Studio or eventually any MacPro that might or might not be unveiled in June. That's 6 connections that will probably need to stay 10Gbe copper and all those are linked to our general 1Gbe network for Internet, printing, etc...

To be honest I didn't count at the begging that MacPros could aggregate ports so I ordered a TP Link TL SX 105 at the same time of Synology , and later read some reviews that imply that its not a great option, and altough I haven't yet stress tested it (still waiting for hard drives to arrive) and it does work it only has 5 ports so I'm contemplating returning it and look for an alternative. Just not sure what a good alternative would be as most reviews I've read so far as mostly focused on 10Gbe SPF+ switches.

Any one with the knowledge that could point me a few alternatives?

Ty in advance.

 

[mrpasc]

Will noise be a concern?
Do you want the switch to be managed (L2 and or L3)?
What’s your realistic budget?
„Decent“ may be very different seen by different people…
Some „guess might be decent for you“

• Mikrotik CRS312-4C+8XG-RM
• Netgear XS508M (not managed so no LAGG)
• TpLink TL-SX1008 (the 8 port version of the switch you have already bought)
• Netgear ProSAFE XS500M
• Aruba Instant On 1960 12XGT 4SFP+ Switch (JL805A)

 

[MiguelC]

Tks for the reply.

I'm ignorant about the benefits or cons of a managed switch, I'm assuming I just want a dumb (unmanaged switch) as its mostly just a means for 2 computers to back up info to the Synology as fast as possible.
Noise could be a concern if its too loud as everything sits in about a 5m radius but if its not more that a Mac fan full throttle would be ok, we mostly work with headphones on and I'm assuming the switch has a speed controlled fan right? I guess most of the time would be idle speed.If occasionally when backing up it runs full throttle would be ok.

Do I need a managed switch to make full use of aggregation? I've read somewhere than some switches explicit support it and others dont.

Tks for the tips, most appreciated I'm gonna look into those.

EDIT: Budget would probably be up to 500eur.By decent I mean something reliable that wont "burn" out and doest have reliability issues that might cause a fire or something like that. One of the reasons I'm asking is because I've read some opinions that the one I got (SX-105) by being fanless and having a "small" external power supply could probably over heat. No idea if that's a real case for concern with this model or not.
Doesnt need to be fancy, just occasionally be as fast as possible to make use of 2x10Gb2 to back up .We dont back up simultaneously, its when we choose to.

 

[pimposh]

Since i had multiple TpLink TL-SX1008 i must warn you. This is not a device you would like to buy.
1) out of 5 units, 3 died within first half year of usage.
2) they tend to hang ocassionally without any reason, either single port or at all until you reset,
3) fan is annoying at least to say.

I had 2 different revisions, did not find any difference inside/outside. Both are junky. I swapped them with Netgears XS508M and they're stable though fan is annoying again and swapping with Noctua will give you a LED warning to be on all the time.

--
now i read you ordered SX105. you will find they tend to hang as well as 8port counterpart. the only advantage is silent/fanless operation.

 

[MiguelC]

Tks for the help, I'll probably send back the SX-105 back and replace with a Netgears XS508M , its 447eur on Amazon (ES) where I got the other. Would the fan be easily replacable? Just unscrew original and screw a new one and plug connector? or do you need any mods to the case?

 

[mrpasc]

Have one XS508M in my lab, fan is not really loud. Would give it a try without modifications.

 

[WanWizard]

i've used Netgear XS708E's in the past, before switching to SFP+. Never had any issue with them.

 

[pimposh]

Would the fan be easily replacable? Just unscrew original and screw a new one and plug connector? or do you need any mods to the case?

Correct. Stock fan is PWM controlled version. Iirc i needed to enlarge just a bit original bolt holes to accomodate tad bigger ones that came with noctua fans.

 

[jdnz]

if your aim with link aggregation is to get better speed for the clients to the NAS then you can skip it ( and hence avoid the need for a managed switch ) - DSM7.2 supports smb multichannel, as does recent version of MacOS ( Configure SMB Multichannel behavior ) - and smb-mc will give you the exact same performance gain ( in fact probably more - client side LAGG doesn't tend to boost smb performance - it only really helps on the server end with multiple clients )

 

[jdnz]

also presumably you HAVE verified the setup on your ds1821 can actually fully saturate a single 10gbe link ( you'd either need to be using nvme caching, ssd arrays or at least 4 hdds in raid0 )

 

[MiguelC]

if your aim with link aggregation is to get better speed for the clients to the NAS then you can skip it ( and hence avoid the need for a managed switch ) - DSM7.2 supports smb multichannel, as does recent version of MacOS ( Configure SMB Multichannel behavior ) - and smb-mc will give you the exact same performance gain ( in fact probably more - client side LAGG doesn't tend to boost smb performance - it only really helps on the server end with multiple clients )

Tks for the input,. I haven't verified anything but basic functionality , got everything but the hard drives and turns out the Synology needs them for basic setup.I couldn't even setup the add on board for 10Gbe.
Initially I was just aiming for simple 10gbe share, so ordered it with the expansion PCI board that happens to have 2 ports because it was the one available (didn't plan it) and later realized that I could aggregate ports.

One of the computers is a MacPro 2013 (I misspelled earlier) that "only" has 2x1Gbe so there's where the idea of aggregating ports came from.

ATM using a Drobo5N that has grown probably too much for a Raid5 with a single 1Gbe connection, currently holds 30TB and has become somewhat stressfull to manage and was trying to future proof our needs, at least for ease of use (speed) to back up work.

But do you mean there won't be speed gains by doing so (aggregate links) or that I would need a managed switch to make use of it or that it is only present to assure bandwidth for multiple concurrent users?

I'm no expert in networks, and I might missing the obvious.

EDIT: what's client side LAGG? I googled it but only comes up stuff about lag in games.

Tks again for the help.

 

[jdnz]

yes - link aggregation for SMB only helps the server ( when you have multiple client ) - for a client LAGG will do nothing

and yes - to setup LAGG you have to have a managed switch - the switch has to be configured to support it and there's no way to configure a 'dumb' switch

SMB multichannel fixes all of this - you DON'T need a manged switch AND it accelerates the client side

Also if you haven't actually comissioned the NAS as yet I'd wait on that - I benchmarked a 6-drive synology at work today and with all 6-drives in raid5 it's limited to 400mb/s read/write - so depending on how you intend to config you arrays you might not even be able to fully saturate a single 10gbe link, making even smb multi-channel pointless, in which case you won't need a switch with as many ports ( cheaper )

 

[MiguelC]

yes - link aggregation for SMB only helps the server ( when you have multiple client ) - for a client LAGG will do nothing

and yes - to setup LAGG you have to have a managed switch - the switch has to be configured to support it and there's no way to configure a 'dumb' switch

SMB multichannel fixes all of this - you DON'T need a manged switch AND it accelerates the client side

Also if you haven't actually comissioned the NAS as yet I'd wait on that - I benchmarked a 6-drive synology at work today and with all 6-drives in raid5 it's limited to 400mb/s read/write - so depending on how you intend to config you arrays you might not even be able to fully saturate a single 10gbe link, making even smb multi-channel pointless, in which case you won't need a switch with as many ports ( cheaper )

Tks, very valuable info. You get 400MB/sec on a single 10Gbe? That's actually better than I thought.

I got the NAS (with the 10Gbe expansion bandoard) and the switch, only hard drives missing.

It will be configured in Raid6 or the Synology equivalent (SHR-2?) In Btfrs and it's already fitted with 2xNVME 512GB Samsung Pro 970 for cache.

Most of the time we back up on batches that go from 10/20 GB to around 300/400 GB.

Hopefully the drives will arrive today and will test, but from what you are saying I might retain this 5 port, using probably just agragattion on the Synology is there's a need for 2 simultaneous users.

Tks all for the help and input.

 

[pimposh]

1821 definitely is not limited to 400MB/s. With 4+ modern drives in R5 you can easily saturate 10Gb link whilst writing to it.... (ofc with larger dataset). Been there done that.

SMB multichannel fixes all of this - you DON'T need a manged switch AND it accelerates the client side

Not that easy bro. First of all client must be RDMA capable, secondly in total bandwidth must exceed single server NIC bandwith.
SMB multichannel is a great help for server side if you have multiple clients...
But we're getting offtopic.

It will be configured in Raid6 or the Synology equivalent (SHR-2?) In Btfrs and it's already fitted with 2xNVME 512GB Samsung Pro 970 for cache.

Most of the time we back up on batches that go from 10/20 GB to around 300/400 GB.

If single backup file weight that much, get rid of that cache. With nice spinner setup in that 1821, it will only decrease your overall performance.

 

[WanWizard]

I get to about 4.7Gbps, but that is while there is also a backup running in the other direction (clients being backed up).

 

[jdnz]

Not that easy bro. First of all client must be RDMA capable, secondly in total bandwidth must exceed single server NIC bandwith.

client does not need to support rdma

from ms docs

• At least one of the following configurations:
  • Multiple network adapters
  • One or more network adapters that support Receive Side Scaling (RSS)
  • Multiple network adapters that are teamed (see NIC teaming)
  • One or more network adapters that support remote direct memory access (RDMA)

 

[pimposh]

Correct. I meant server.

 

[MiguelC]

All good points and gives me at least an idea where to start. I was under the impression that NVME cache would help at least for keeping indexing records and some Btrfs info , of course not very helpful for sustained transfers. But will surely test with and without, no idea of the specifics you guys are talking about, but already have some good points and a general best setup approach.
Even if it only allows 2 concurrent users near 10Gbe (with aggregation just for the Synology on a unmanaged switch) will already be great and a great upgrade from current Drobo5N where it's mostly impossible to have 2 simultaneous user.
Tks all.

 

[pimposh]

Even if it only allows 2 concurrent users near 10Gbe (with aggregation just for the Synology on a unmanaged switch)

Unmanaged switch = no aggregation (LAG/LACP/etc.)

But if your Synology got more 10Gb ports, like earlier jdnz mentioned SMB multichannel can help load balancing traffic across different clients (if only client is smb multi compatbile, and has less performance of course than server offer).

 

[MiguelC]

Now I'm confused, and I dont get those acronyms, the Synology i got has this board : E10G18-T2 | Synology Inc.
Witch provides 2x10Gbe ports.

In specs mentions something of: IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation but the switch (TP Link TL-SX105) doesnt mention so I'm assuming it doesn't explicit support.

jdnz stated above that latest MacOS's do support (EDIT: SMB Multichannel) I went to check and seems to be the case for any OS after BigSur 11.3

Configure SMB Multichannel behavior - Apple Support

In macOS Big Sur 11.3 and later, SMB Multichannel is enabled with default settings that are ideal for most organizations and users, but users can make adjustments as needed.

support.apple.com

"SMB Multichannel allows macOS to establish more than one connection to an SMB server"

I've read the Synology page on SMB multichannel Synology Community
and some other related pages as well and it seems to suggest (LAG) link aggregation (I'm learning acronyms) its something different from SMB multichannel but no reference to managed/unmanaged switches.

No idea of the reputation of this guy but if you believe what he is saying SMB multichannel is actually a lot more interesting than LAG ,at least for small deployments like mine, and in fact makes me question again if I shouldn't get a 8 port switch:

It also seems that SMB mutichannel (isn't there an acronym for this?) is still in Beta mode on Synology and will eventually be released on a stable version with some references stating it will come in 7.2 but can't see any reference of it in Release Candidate notes of 7.2 and that Synology seems to refer as SMB3 , being that stable version ATM is DSM 7.1.1

is SMB3 and SMB multichannel the same thing of is just a Synology reference name?

So I guess its a matter of waiting and trying.I did get the drives but unfortunately work got in the way and will take me a few days to get to it.