Newbie choice of Cisco 1900 vs 2900

In article , rbob wrote: :I have a small office network with 10/100mbps NICs in 15 computers as :well as a few network printers and netcams. The server is running :Windows 2003 and SQL 2000 and also has a 10/100mbs NIC. The database is :somewhat traffic intensive.

;I have come into possesion of a Cisco Catylyst 1900 and a separate ;2900. Would there be an advantage to using one of these switches over ;the other in this situation?

1900: 10 Mbit ports except for 2 uplinks; runs CatOS

2900: 10/100 ports, some models have gigabit; some models run IOS; some models have Layer 3 operations (i.e., routing); some models have QoS and rate limiting

2900 covers a large range of capabilities -- too large a range to use as a family designator. The 2901/2902 were very different than the 2948G-L3, and quite different again from the 2950. The 2950 is a current model; the 2901 went end-of-sale in 1999.

Thanks for the reply. The model is 2901.

I guess my question is with a small network such as mine I could use the 24 ports of the 1900 compared to the 12 ports of the 2901 but would there be any speed difference (10mbps of 1900 vs 10/100mbps or 2901) ?

rbob

In article , rbob wrote: :Thanks for the reply. The model is 2901.

:I guess my question is with a small network such as mine I could use :the 24 ports of the 1900 compared to the 12 ports of the 2901 but would :there be any speed difference (10mbps of 1900 vs 10/100mbps or 2901) ?

1900: 550000 pps (packets per second), 1 Gbps switch fabric 2900-XL: 3000000 pps, 3.2 Gbps switch fabric

If your 2900 is not XL, then you will have performance somewhere inbetween. But it'd probably be at least 4 times the performance of the 1900.

If you have devices that you don't mind running at 10 Mbps, and you need more than 12 ports, then you can plug the slower devices into the 1900 and use a cross-over cable on the uplink of the 1900 to connect it to one of the ports of the 2901.

Great...That is what I needed. Thanks