Large network and dumb switches

No. Cisco would provide better monitoring tools, nice features like port-security, NAC, and private-vlans. It would also provide rapid-spanning-tree for the ability to create a slightly more robust design. But none of those items are requirements for you.

No. Cisco provides more features for debugging and troubleshooting networks. If you have no desire to manage your network, then any switch will do. But Cisco really does have more valuable features for those of us who do have to monitor and manage our network, and the acquisition cost is a triffle in comparison with the labor savings that these features bring. But, again, if you have no intention of using them, then there is no point in buying them.

Only if it is a layer 3 switch (e.g. 3550, 3560, 3750) and you use it as a router to cut down on broadcast storms. Otherwise, no.

One question - why so many levels? You don't gain a noticable speed improvement with today's switches - in fact, you introduce more bottlenecks. A 24 port 10/100/1000 switch at the core with 24 port 10/100 switches with an 10/100/1000 uplink would be a more scalable design for the size of network you are discussing.

Thank you for your answers!

Probably not. It would be better to have them, for sure. However, the network will be of closed type, in the sense that the people who use the network will be the ones that take care of it. This will not go to the great extent, but it is expected that there will be no intention to hack it, spread viruses and such. I am sure that such things will happen once in a while, but I am pretty sure that we will be able to explain to all of the users that this is for their goodness. There will also be sanctions to whoever is found guilty of such things, so I am not very interested in paying 10x for management features. I still agree it is much easier with these, but unfortunately the price is a limiting factor.

Yes, cutting down broadcast storms is why I was considering this. How much do you think this can be a problem? I am going to put DNS/WINS, so NetBIOS wouldn't be a problem in this case. Are there any other cases of "normal" broadcasts that might pose a problem? If I buy a switch that has VLANs and cut everything into separate broadcast domains, this will probably be a lot smaller problem, don't you think?

I was talking about data layer broadcasts - do you think IP broadcasts are a big problem in the network usage I think this will have - i.e. file sharing and gaming mostly?

That surely is an option. The level more is just the first-shot at the solution considering the price. I could get 16-port swtiches two times cheaper then 24-port, that was the main reason I thought this way. Considering the cabling, however, this will surely not be this cheaper. I looked at the configuration you suggest in the meantime and it really seems that is a lot better solution.

Have you done some this size network built exclusively of unmanaged switches (or only one managed at core, such stuff)? If you did, can you tell me what is the number of computers and what and how severe the problems with these were?

Thanks again for the reply, this was very useful for me!

I don't remember what you said the size of your network would be but I run some small businesses. In one office of about 40 computers total with 3 switches I've never had to deal with hacking, viruses, or similar. What the management does do is allow you to find 10/100 printers that don't play well with gig switches, bad cables, intermittently failing NICs, etc.. The management features save dozens of hours per year. And if there's no on site wizard, management will allow a paid visiting wizard to find out what's going on very quickly compared to the random swapping of cables and port.

And proactively you see where the traffic is flowing and arrange your network according.

Pay now or pay later. :)

"network management" for a medium-sized operation doesn't have to be expensive. Lots of mid-range switches have built-in web pages that show traffic and error statistics and allow the manual settings of important parameters on a per-port basis. You don't have to set up

Both these features have saved my butt more than once.

Look at the HP Procurve line of switches and the prices. The business cost of an hour's downtime for your employees will exceed the extra cost of a full set of Procurve managed switches. (the cheapest models don't have management. RTFM before you buy.)

central amanegement also doesnt have to be expensive - but often "expensive" is a subjective measure.

have a look at general monitoring tools that can check switches, routers and other key devices such as servers - Whats Up Gold is a good one.

this means 1 place to manage from - and 1 place all the warnings arrive at - important if you need to zero in on problems, esp if the site is remote.

you can get by with built in web pages, but the flip side to this is that the killer is "scale" in terms of number of devices - for the entire network, not just that site. Basically you want a minimal number of separate "management points" that have to be dealt with separately.

managing 5 switches is fairly simple - handling 500 is not going to work unless you only use it reactively, and dont need it very often.

And if you use the built in features try to minimise how many switches you need - i dont have much experience with HP switches, but some of them are modular with fairly high port counts and that would be good for at least the central box.

I will give all your recommendations a thought. ProCurve switches seem a good choice, but I am still looking around for other solutions.

Do any of you guys have any experience with switches like D-Link, Allied Telesyn or TP-Link? I am looking at switch with 24x100MB + at least 2x1GB ports, SNMP would be good (a must?), according to your recommendations.

E.g. I have just came accross TP-Link TL-SL2428WEB, which is 24x100MB +

Here are their user guide pages, you can find all mentioned models here (the zips on the right are manuals):