ᐅ Switch with separate SFP / SFP+ installation

I didn’t expect that my question would spark such a discussion here….

To outline the basic facts:

- CAT 7 cable will be used
- Switch probably from Zyxel, Gigabit switch with SFP ports
- One NAS (backup, streaming, data storage)
- Several TVs with Apple TV, etc.
- 2-3 outdoor cameras (possibly PoE)
- 2-3 PCs with LAN
- The rest on Wi-Fi

Do I understand correctly that if the switch only supports Gigabit anyway, then whether it’s regular CAT cable or SFP, the switch is the limiting factor?

Or does it currently or in the future make sense to connect the two devices using SFP? Most end devices don’t really benefit from that yet, do they?

SFP also supports “only” 1 Gbit. With SFP+ and the right cable, you can achieve more. But don’t get hung up on that and change the topology. Keep everything centralized and then run enough cables to the next floor.
With Cat7, you can also transmit 10 Gbit (with the right switch and clients).

@opalau The Flex HD does not support full duplex. Sinit is significantly slower. Multiple clients slow it down even more. The new standard will only achieve these speeds with a single client. And it still needs to be developed first.

rick2018 schrieb:

@opalau but the Flex HD can’t do that as full duplex. It’s significantly slower. Multiple clients make it even slower. Only the new standard will enter the speed range. With one client. And that still has to appear first.

You are right, I wasn’t very precise there and I’m not that familiar either, since I usually connect clients that rely on bandwidth via cable. I just wanted to point out that WLAN is already slowly reaching the 1 Gbit speed range, so 10 Gbit is not an exaggerated future technology.

opalau schrieb:


Of course, I connect all end devices with 10 Gbps! Nowadays, that’s hardly a significant investment for NAS, desktop PCs, and laptops.

Which notebooks actually have a 10 Gbps adapter built in? And why 10 Gbps for a small NAS (2 or 4 drives)? Those are slow, large hard drives. The NAS’s CPU and the drives themselves hardly handle that throughput. The reasoning is really becoming more far-fetched.

Yes, if you really want to, you can utilize 10 Gbps at home. But there are very few cases where that truly applies.

And for that, the switch would also need to be fully equipped with 10 Gbps ports, which would probably blow the budget.

Regarding the question from @JoachimG.: If the switch only supports 1 Gbps, it doesn’t matter. Just use CAT7 cable and that’s it.

FloHB123 schrieb:

Which laptops actually have a built-in 10Gbit adapter? And why 10Gbit for a small NAS (2 or 4 drives)? Those are slow, large hard drives. The NAS CPU and drives barely manage that throughput. The argument is really becoming quite far-fetched.

Built-in? I don’t think any have that. But adapters via USB-C, Thunderbolt 3, or similar are fairly affordable. And if I use the laptop as a stationary device, it’s connected anyway. (I plug 1 or 2 Thunderbolt 3 cables into my MacBook Pro, and one of those has the 10Gbit RJ45 adapter.)

I believe NAS with 2 drives usually don’t have 10Gbit or space for expansion cards. But NAS with 4, 5, 6, or 8 drives often do have that option and can handle the corresponding transfer rates.

FloHB123 schrieb:

And the switch would have to be fully equipped with 10Gbit, which probably exceeds the budget.

As I said, it’s enough to provide a 10Gbit switch for the devices that support and utilize it. The rest can connect to an inexpensive 1Gbit switch. A Unifi XG 16 costs about €600, and other manufacturers offer much cheaper options (for example, the Mikrotik CRS305 costs about €150 and has 4x 10Gbit SFP+ ports).

I don’t see where this argument is far-fetched. 10Gbit is not excessively expensive and offers significant advantages over 1Gbit in certain scenarios.