0

I have a Dell 6248 managed switch with 48 1 GB ports. I'm out of ports and would like to add an additional 48 1GB ports. The official Dell-Recommended solution is to get another 6248 and link the two with a 48GB fiber SFP+ uplink (might be using the wrong term here).

Is there a cheaper way to add 48 1GBe ports? For example, is there an unmanaged switch I could stack that's both theoretically and actually compatible?

Are there hidden compatibility issues if I try to stack with some other non-Dell managed switch?

3
  • 1
    Well, are you using any of the managed features? VLANs, QoS, spanning tree, port security, etc.?
    – EEAA
    May 2, 2013 at 5:34
  • Yeah. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part... I was hoping I could "bolt on" an unmanaged switch and have the managed switch by the brains for both. This doesn't make sense even after thinking about it for a half a second... all packets to unmanaged switch would have to be passed over uplink to managed switch for it to consider and deal with somehow. If I knew more about the features we're using (VLANS and QoS, I suspect it would make even less sense.)
    – user426724
    May 3, 2013 at 3:50
  • The cheaper config I ended up considering was a with a semi-managed PowerConnect 2848 (with PowerConnect 2848 as a leaf switch in the way Falcon Momot suggested). PowerConnect 2848 would have been 1/4 price, but it looked like only uplink option was 4 1GB SFP modules, which seemed like a serious bottleneck. If I knew more about what I was doing I suspect I might have been able to figure something out, but to stay within budget and guarantee everything worked without hassles, I went down to a 6224P with 48GB uplink.
    – user426724
    May 3, 2013 at 4:22

3 Answers 3

1

You could do this with a switch with less ports, or bond GbE ports instead of using fibre. Both of these have obvious disadvantages (less ports, and a potential bottleneck).

If you need any managed features (particularly, as in EEAA's comment, spanning tree, VLANs, QoS, and port security), you can't deploy an unmanaged switch in most cases. However, if you know all the traffic on the second switch is on the same VLAN and the switch is a leaf switch (it will have only one connection to the managed switch and not connect to any other switches), and everything on it will be equal in terms of QoS, you could have the managed switch just tag all the traffic coming in from it, and you won't need that switch to be in the spanning tree topology. Only do this if port security isn't a concern either.

I can't think of any specific model like this. However, you'd be looking for an unmanaged switch that supports the same fibre interconnect as your dell 6248 - if memory serves, the line protocol is usually proprietary.

1
  • Thanks, this advice got me the closest to finding a cheaper way to add ports. Dell semi-managed switches seemed like a decent option, but they don't appear to support any uplink options that won't mean sacrificing performance. Briefly looked into unmanaged non-dell switches that support SFP+, but then it seemed like I was getting higher $ amounts and risking compatibility headaches.
    – user426724
    May 3, 2013 at 4:42
1

The 6248 can be stacked with either the 1GB SFP ports on the front, an SFP+ module in the back (2x10Gb), or a dedicated stacking module that is actually slightly faster at 2x12Gb.

I highly recommend you go with the dedicated stacking modules if you need management on the additional ports. If you just need more ports, go get a budget switch and daisy chain it with the understanding that those users behind that switch will be share an uplink. So maybe you can move utility devices like printers and such behind a smaller switch and leave the heavy lifting to your 6248.

1
  • I did mainly just need more ports, but performance is a key concern. If I'd found a cheap 48 port switch with an uplink that wouldn't have been a bottleneck, and could have been configured in the way Falcon talks about, I would have jumped on it. Ended up going with a smaller managed dell switch. Foolish I guess -- sacrificed 24 ports and $750, but sysadmin is not my primary role and at this point I decided to just go with a known quantity :-/
    – user426724
    May 3, 2013 at 4:35
0

No, not unless the dell switches are total crap and unusable in the real world. Stacking is normal, mostly in an office environment. I have 1gb links going to the rooms (2 per room actually) and normally use 8 port switches in the rooms for 3-4 workstations - unmanaged. Never had a problem, but I do not use dell in the backend.

Obviously you: * Loose the management on the other switch. * Are limited on the bridge by the bridge speed - i.e. if you couple 2x48port with 1gbit then that 1gbit is limiting the traffic between the switches.

The later is the reason you normally use 10g or something propietary higher for the stacking - because otherwise you better make sure you do not have high amounts of traffic crossing the stack.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .