TP-LINK TL-SG1016D 16-Port Gigabit Desktop Switch £54.97 delivered @ Amazon uk
167°

TP-LINK TL-SG1016D 16-Port Gigabit Desktop Switch £54.97 delivered @ Amazon uk

28
Found 25th Mar
It's not to difficult to find a 10/100/Gigabit 8 port Switch for a good price but a cheap 10/100/Gigabit 16 port is as rare as hen's teeth! This is about as cheap as they come, I think. Also it is fanless (according to the tp-link site). Bigger ones tend to have fans which can be annoying in a home environment. Does not support POE It seems you get a 3 year warranty with tp-link
Community Updates

Groups

28 Comments
Looks good, I see there's also a Zyxel 16 port for same price and a bit smaller if that helps those with limited space
amazon.co.uk/dp/…c=1
Original Poster
spannerzone2 m ago

Looks good, I see there's also a Zyxel 16 port for same price and a bit …Looks good, I see there's also a Zyxel 16 port for same price and a bit smaller if that helps those with limited spacehttps://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008QN90OK/ref=sspa_dk_detail_3?psc=1



Yes, I looked at that as I thought it might support POE, but it doesn't seem that model does
Going to be total noob n ask what do these things do... I see them advertise but can some one tell me in lamen terms what they do please
123KS1 m ago

Going to be total noob n ask what do these things do... I see them …Going to be total noob n ask what do these things do... I see them advertise but can some one tell me in lamen terms what they do please



The simple explanation, it allows you to connect more devices to your router by giving more ports.
123KS17 m ago

Going to be total noob n ask what do these things do... I see them …Going to be total noob n ask what do these things do... I see them advertise but can some one tell me in lamen terms what they do please


Also allows you to only have to run one cable across your house, but still hardwire multiple devices at the other end.
Edited by: "R0adRat" 25th Mar
Its the equivelant to a 1 to 4 gang extension lead. Or in this case a 1 to 16 (-1). Plug an ethernet lead into any port and get 15 extra ones.....
No comment on the actuall deal it self but I really wish people would be more carefull with their tags, this is a 'Network Switch' not a 'Nintendo Switch', this is the third one in a week to end up in the Nintendo Switch deals thread
Edited by: "raverdave2k" 25th Mar
raverdave2k1 h, 12 m ago

No comment on the actuall deal it self but I really wish people would be …No comment on the actuall deal it self but I really wish people would be more carefull with their tags, this is a 'Network Switch' not a 'Nintendo Switch', this is the third one in a week to end up in the Nintendo Switch deals thread


Good lord how terrible.
raverdave2k2 h, 19 m ago

No comment on the actuall deal it self but I really wish people would be …No comment on the actuall deal it self but I really wish people would be more carefull with their tags, this is a 'Network Switch' not a 'Nintendo Switch', this is the third one in a week to end up in the Nintendo Switch deals thread


Given the number of strange tags I honestly think they're automatic. I've found mobile phones in home and garden which I can only assume is because they function in the home and garden... as well as everywhere else.
Aside from neatness and 2 extra ports any reason not to use 2x8 ports which cost just over half the price of this...is a 16port any more intelligent regarding network traffic management etc?
Original Poster
fubar88851 m ago

Aside from neatness and 2 extra ports any reason not to use 2x8 ports …Aside from neatness and 2 extra ports any reason not to use 2x8 ports which cost just over half the price of this...is a 16port any more intelligent regarding network traffic management etc?



Yes, the connection between the two switches would only allow up to a gigbit connection between the two switches, whereas all the connections on the single switch can communicate with each other at gigabit speeds.
jasee3 m ago

Yes, the connection between the two switches would only allow up to a …Yes, the connection between the two switches would only allow up to a gigbit connection between the two switches, whereas all the connections on the single switch can communicate with each other at gigabit speeds.


Router > Switch 1
Router > Switch 2

Wouldn't that make more sense instead of

Router > Switch 1 > Switch 2
rev641 m ago

Router > Switch 1Router > Switch 2Wouldn't that make more sense instead …Router > Switch 1Router > Switch 2Wouldn't that make more sense instead ofRouter > Switch 1 > Switch 2


Depends where you are running these to, might have one upstairs one down. And a cable ran from router to each. But if in a Comms cupboard under stairs or something may not be as simple as running two cables .
t3rm3y4 m ago

Depends where you are running these to, might have one upstairs one down. …Depends where you are running these to, might have one upstairs one down. And a cable ran from router to each. But if in a Comms cupboard under stairs or something may not be as simple as running two cables .



Of course. But the original question was vague.
rev62 h, 12 m ago

Router > Switch 1Router > Switch 2Wouldn't that make more sense instead …Router > Switch 1Router > Switch 2Wouldn't that make more sense instead ofRouter > Switch 1 > Switch 2


That doesn't solve the problem though, still half the ports are bottlenecked through the one cable to the other switch?

P.S. I don't know anything about networking
Joshimitsu912 m ago

That doesn't solve the problem though, still half the ports are …That doesn't solve the problem though, still half the ports are bottlenecked through the one cable to the other switch?P.S. I don't know anything about networking



If you connect a switch to a switch, yes. But if each switch is connected directly to the router I don't see the problem.
Original Poster
rev63 h, 0 m ago

Router > Switch 1Router > Switch 2Wouldn't that make more sense instead …Router > Switch 1Router > Switch 2Wouldn't that make more sense instead ofRouter > Switch 1 > Switch 2



Wouldn't make any difference to the connections between the two switches, they would still be only 1 gigabit.
jasee18 m ago

Wouldn't make any difference to the connections between the two switches, …Wouldn't make any difference to the connections between the two switches, they would still be only 1 gigabit.


A gigabit each?
Edited by: "rev6" 25th Mar
Original Poster
rev622 m ago

You said a gigabit between the switches originally.



It doesn't change whether you connect the two switches to each other directly or each switch to the router, the bandwidth between the two switches is still i gigabit so all the connections on one switch have to go through the same 1 gigabit connection to the other switch (if one connection is on the other switch) whereas each of the connections on a 16 port switch can make a one gigabit connection to any other connection on the switch.
jasee3 m ago

It doesn't change whether you connect the two switches to each other …It doesn't change whether you connect the two switches to each other directly or each switch to the router, the bandwidth between the two switches is still i gigabit so all the connections on one switch have to go through the same 1 gigabit connection to the other switch (if one connection is on the other switch) whereas each of the connections on a 16 port switch can make a one gigabit connection to any other connection on the switch.



I really don't understand but I'll take your word.
Original Poster
rev631 m ago

A gigabit each?



It is if your considering traffic going to the wan, but that's a lot slower for home networking anyway.
I'm talking about traffic BETWEEN the two switches. Each branch is 1 gigbit but the connection between the two switches is still 1 gigabit whether you go through the router or not.
Original Poster
rev614 m ago

I really don't understand but I'll take your word.



It's a bit theoretical anyway in home networking as most users won't want to be connecting to other users machines on the same network unless they're running a MS workgroup or MS client/server. But it also applies if you are using anything locally that you want people to be able to connect to, like a media server. Most people won't have a use for a large number of physical ports, they use wireless networking,
rev612 h, 4 m ago

If you connect a switch to a switch, yes. But if each switch is connected …If you connect a switch to a switch, yes. But if each switch is connected directly to the router I don't see the problem.


I think the problem is, say you have device A on switch 1 wants to connect to device A on switch 2, and at the same time device B on switch 1 is talking to device B on switch 2, their combined total speed will be limited to gigabit due to the cable going via the router. Whereas if all 4 devices were on a single switch, the two pairs could both talk at gigabit speeds at the same time, or something
jasee17 h, 32 m ago

whereas all the connections on the single switch can communicate with each …whereas all the connections on the single switch can communicate with each other at gigabit speeds.


*Assuming the switch's backplane provides enough bandwidth and frame forwarding capacity.

Looking at the spec sheet, this 16 port switch offers 32Gbps switching capacity & 23.8Mpps frame forwarding; enough to service all ports simultaneously - which is what you'd expect for the price.

Besides the obvious bottleneck of chaining switches, cheap 8-port switches are unlikely to be so internally capable as to handle all ports at full speed simultaneously.
In some respects you get what you pay for, though for a home network how much cross-port bandwidth do you actually need?!?
Edited by: "TehJumpingJawa" 26th Mar
Original Poster
Joshimitsu911 h, 2 m ago

I think the problem is, say you have device A on switch 1 wants to connect …I think the problem is, say you have device A on switch 1 wants to connect to device A on switch 2, and at the same time device B on switch 1 is talking to device B on switch 2, their combined total speed will be limited to gigabit due to the cable going via the router. Whereas if all 4 devices were on a single switch, the two pairs could both talk at gigabit speeds at the same time, or something



that's right
Original Poster
TehJumpingJawa2 h, 5 m ago

*Assuming the switch's backplane provides enough bandwidth and frame …*Assuming the switch's backplane provides enough bandwidth and frame forwarding capacity.Looking at the spec sheet, this 16 port switch offers 32Gbps switching capacity & 23.8Mpps frame forwarding; enough to service all ports simultaneously - which is what you'd expect for the price.Besides the obvious bottleneck of chaining switches, cheap 8-port switches are unlikely to be so internally capable as to handle all ports at full speed simultaneously.Insome respects you get what you pay for, though for a home network how much cross-port bandwidth do you actually need?!?


Unfortunately, I don't have a gigabit network, but I have several physical networks, however most home users probably don't have any wired connections. So it's mostly extended (if at all) by wireless repeaters where the actual speed will be determined by the user's distance from the node, internally and externally.
Even with a physical network for instance in practice for a computer physical disk to disk transfers (a relatively fast operation) may be under a gigabit/sec for non SSD disks.
It's a matter of determining where the bottleneck lies for any operation. So YMMV
"most home users probably don't have any wired connections" - most do. They're still lots of desktops out there.
If your need is just for a wireless repeater, then just cable the repeater straight to your router, and no need for a switch.
And if you're copying a large file, e.g. DVD, then even a single 3TB drive can stream at 130Mbps, which will fully saturate a Gigabit link.
While this is a decent price for a 16port gigabit switch, it's an expensive upgrade if you already have an 8 port gigabit switch.
A better value option may be a second 8 port gigabit switch and minimise bottlenecks between switches by placing any servers and NASes on the same switch as the computers that read/write to them.
Original Poster
Hootwo3 h, 40 m ago

"most home users probably don't have any wired connections" - most do. …"most home users probably don't have any wired connections" - most do. They're still lots of desktops out there.If your need is just for a wireless repeater, then just cable the repeater straight to your router, and no need for a switch.And if you're copying a large file, e.g. DVD, then even a single 3TB drive can stream at 130Mbps, which will fully saturate a Gigabit link.While this is a decent price for a 16port gigabit switch, it's an expensive upgrade if you already have an 8 port gigabit switch.A better value option may be a second 8 port gigabit switch and minimise bottlenecks between switches by placing any servers and NASes on the same switch as the computers that read/write to them.



Granted some of that, I was originally asked what were the advantages of a 16port switch over two 8port switches, I think I've answered that fully already. It's pretty obvious what you can do if you don't want to buy one. That's all.
Edited by: "jasee" 28th Mar
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text