Small managed switch (VLANs) and PoE for other devices (APs). Thought it might be good to future proof a bit as some Ubiquiti APs (and probably others) are rated for slightly above 15W (802.3af standard) hence why the 802.3at standard (30W). In reality though, I think most people see their APs running on single watt power unless they have a ton of users on it. But still nice to have.
Right click and open in new tab to see larger version.
It is a nice price for a solid product, as long as people realize that it is a MAX PoE budget of 63W. Probably fine for most people, but always wise to check.
I was considering this a while back, but the Cisco 2802i AP that I use are rated at 26W each. So with 3 access points, I was already way past the theoretical limit.
A few friends have purchased this one since they also had a few AP and cameras, and the 120W PoE budget is handy and a few extra ports. OK, it is about $15 more, and not a well known brand, but they've had it for over a year and works perfectly fine. Anyhow, just an option for anyone who needs higher PoE budget.
I'm holding off for now for a deal on the Netgear GS316PP, which is 183W PoE budget with 16 ports (and no fan, and small footprint (only 4 inches deep). Adding a few more PoE cameras to my system and will need the extra ports, and would be neater to get rid of all those PoE injectors
I’m always confused about switches. If I have 10 plus wired ports, is it better to get 2 switches with 5 each or a 10 port? Keeping in mind, my Shaw modem only has two output ports. So I currently run 1 to each of my two switches. Has to be a better way
Scruffythecat wrote: ↑
I’m always confused about switches. If I have 10 plus wired ports, is it better to get 2 switches with 5 each or a 10 port? Keeping in mind, my Shaw modem only has two output ports. So I currently run 1 to each of my two switches. Has to be a better way
10 ports is better (if you only had a single port on your modem). First of all you save one port, since 1 port on each switch would be used to connect to the next switch/router/modem upstream.
Secondly, when you connect a second switch downstream from a first switch (assuming you did not have 2 ports on the modem), then all the devices on the second switch would be bottlenecking though that 1 port that connects that second switch back to the first.
Now, if you are just doing basic browsing and low bandwidth tasks, you will probably not notice a huge difference. But if you have NAS servers or doing video streaming, it could be a big bottleneck depending on which devices are connected to which switch. If you have to daisy chain them, then consider what each port is connected to. On the second switch, put all the lighter/low bandwidth devices, which speed has close to no noticeable impact on.
But if your shaw modem has 2 ports for internal LAN, they you can put 1 switch to each port if you want, and load balance them a little (spread the devices that pull higher bandwidth) over the different switches. Probably the more flexible option.
Think of it like large 4 lane highways. If the 4 lane highway comes down to a single lane to get across a bridge, then that would be a bottleneck. When there is not much traffic, it is not too bad. But as traffic increases, it takes more time for the cars to get through to the other side of the bridge. BUT if you had another 4 lane highway with a second bridge that leads through to another 1 lane bridge to the same place, then if you put half the traffic on the other side, it would help decrease the times it takes to get across.
daveinsurgent wrote: ↑I think this would be perfect for powering my 2x EAP660HDs!
I have ordered a couple of these AP's. Can you comment on your experience?
Is it not better to buy a tp link switch, so that you can manage everything in a single UI rather than having to use separate one for the switch and the access point?
Clee wrote: ↑Is it good for powering a few Ubiquiti Access Points?
Depends on the total power needed. Calculate thr total power needed for all thr devices. . This switch gives a total output of 63 w.
If the total power needed is more, then better to get a switch with higher power output.
Emporium wrote: ↑
10 ports is better (if you only had a single port on your modem). First of all you save one port, since 1 port on each switch would be used to connect to the next switch/router/modem upstream.
Secondly, when you connect a second switch downstream from a first switch (assuming you did not have 2 ports on the modem), then all the devices on the second switch would be bottlenecking though that 1 port that connects that second switch back to the first.
Now, if you are just doing basic browsing and low bandwidth tasks, you will probably not notice a huge difference. But if you have NAS servers or doing video streaming, it could be a big bottleneck depending on which devices are connected to which switch. If you have to daisy chain them, then consider what each port is connected to. On the second switch, put all the lighter/low bandwidth devices, which speed has close to no noticeable impact on.
But if your shaw modem has 2 ports for internal LAN, they you can put 1 switch to each port if you want, and load balance them a little (spread the devices that pull higher bandwidth) over the different switches. Probably the more flexible option.
Think of it like large 4 lane highways. If the 4 lane highway comes down to a single lane to get across a bridge, then that would be a bottleneck. When there is not much traffic, it is not too bad. But as traffic increases, it takes more time for the cars to get through to the other side of the bridge. BUT if you had another 4 lane highway with a second bridge that leads through to another 1 lane bridge to the same place, then if you put half the traffic on the other side, it would help decrease the times it takes to get across.
If you have a 1gbe connection feeding into a router, and that router has 5 ports, then you still only have 1gbe of throughput to the internet.
If you have a 1gbe connection feeding into a router and each of those ports feed into a separate switch, then you still only have 1gbe total throughput to the internet.
If you have 5 devices on a switch, and they all want to connect to the 5th device which is a NAS for example. That NAS is still limited by its individual port. If you move 4 of those devices to a separate switch, but still using a single port on the first switch, then 4 are using a single port on the first switch now, they are still limited by the port the NAS is on.
My point is with all devices connected 1gbe switch, 1gbe router, 1gbe NAS, it doesn't make any difference at all. You are limited by the weakest link.
Now, if you have a switch the has 1gbe ports, and say 2 10gbe ports, and the NAS in on a 10gbe port, then maybe it could make a difference if you are sitting there saturating the line with transfers between nvme drives or something.
Anyway, to summarize, design your topology based on the location of your devices. Sometimes its easier to chain 2 switches than to run 6 wires, and the difference in speed will not really be that noticeable, if at all, unless you are a power user who needs to move files all day. But if that's the case you should be lookin at 10gbe. For internet streaming it will not make any difference.
Whygas wrote: ↑
I have ordered a couple of these AP's. Can you comment on your experience?
Is it not better to buy a tp link switch, so that you can manage everything in a single UI rather than having to use separate one for the switch and the access point?
They're great. Initial first few days had some spotty access and my wireless devices on windows kept losing connection or saying it changed and you had to reauth, but that subsided and has been fine now
I agree a tp-link switch that integrates with omada would feel more complete, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra $ - the amount of things I change on a switch are very minimal, plus my router is an x86 pfSense box so I'm already out of the "everything under one roof" option.
I came from some OpenWrt access points and as much as I didn't want to leave open source behind the 660hds are stable, although playing GeForce Now on Wifi (6) still has stuttering that I wasn't expecting, but I've don't no troubleshooting it tweaking at all yet.
shampygarg wrote: ↑
And the power can be adjusted for each port f as per the description.. so I don't know if there is a limit of max watt that don't exceed 63.
Many of these switches will prioritize power to the lower numbered ports.
So under 802.3af (aka PoE) a device can negotiate to use up to 15.4W of power. under 802.3at (aka PoE+) it can negotiate up to 30W. Obviously they will not always use the max power they negotiated for. So what happens is the ones on lower numbered ports get priority in case of power overages. So example: if Port1 is consuming 25W, and Port 2 is consume 23W.. Then there is only 15W left for ports 3 and 4. Port 3 will be given the power it needs (up to 15W) and then it is possible that port 4 may not have enough power to run. When the other ports decrease their power usage, then port 4 may get enough power to run. So you effectively put your most critical devices on the lower numbered ports. That way they have a better chance of being guaranteed to get the power they need. But if the sum of total power usage is never above 63W, then there is no issues.
Also, many mentioned ubiquiti. May sure the units you have are using standard 802.3af/802.3at PoE and not their old style passive PoE. If they are using their old passive PoE, this switch will not work for them, since they do not negotiate.
I used to have an old UAP and UAP-LR ages ago and they were using passive 12-24V PoE. I had to add one of these adapters to make it at least 902.3af compliant. Most newer Ubuquiti devices are 802.3af/at compliant, but always worth checking.
crazyea wrote: ↑
If you have a 1gbe connection feeding into a router, and that router has 5 ports, then you still only have 1gbe of throughput to the internet.
If you have a 1gbe connection feeding into a router and each of those ports feed into a separate switch, then you still only have 1gbe total throughput to the internet.
If you have 5 devices on a switch, and they all want to connect to the 5th device which is a NAS for example. That NAS is still limited by its individual port. If you move 4 of those devices to a separate switch, but still using a single port on the first switch, then 4 are using a single port on the first switch now, they are still limited by the port the NAS is on.
My point is with all devices connected 1gbe switch, 1gbe router, 1gbe NAS, it doesn't make any difference at all. You are limited by the weakest link.
Now, if you have a switch the has 1gbe ports, and say 2 10gbe ports, and the NAS in on a 10gbe port, then maybe it could make a difference if you are sitting there saturating the line with transfers between nvme drives or something.
Anyway, to summarize, design your topology based on the location of your devices. Sometimes its easier to chain 2 switches than to run 6 wires, and the difference in speed will not really be that noticeable, if at all, unless you are a power user who needs to move files all day. But if that's the case you should be lookin at 10gbe. For internet streaming it will not make any difference.
I completely agree, and like I said, if people are doing basic stuff like browsing, it won't make a difference (so do what is more convenient).
But if you do have local devices like NAS, you do need to think about it a bit. It is not only about internet access. Local access is the problem. So if you have SWITCH1 which has your NAS and 3 other DEVICES, then port 4 of SWTICH 1 goes to a SWITCH2 where you have 3 other devices, then those 3 devices on SWITCH2 share a 1GB link back to SWITCH1. So if 2 devices from SWITCH 1, and 2 devices from SWITCH 2, start transferring from the NAS (assuming all NICs created equal), then instead of each getting a 1/4 of the available bandwidth to the NAS, it would be different. The 2 devices from SWITCH1 would get 1/3 of the bandwidth, but the 2 devices from SWITCH2 would SHARE the remaining 1/3 over the one port going to SWITCH2. Keep in mind this is a simplified version assuming no managed switches and QoS queues, etc...
My NAS is on a 10GBe port of my main switch, and PCs that transfer heavily or directly on that same switch, but others are daisy chained.
So for basic users, it probably won't make a huge difference (do what is more convenient), especially if you just use it for internet. But if you do heavy transfers especially if you have local file servers, it may be worth evaluating the individual machine potential usage.
