Router vs Switch vs. Hub

Topic

New Reply

What the heck is the difference between a router, a switch and a hub? I’m trying to decide which to buy to network my 2 computers to a Cisco ADSL line. What should I be buying?? Any comments, observations, conclusions????? Thanks

Reply | Quote

Replies

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/router.html%5B/url%5D
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/switch.html%5B/url%5D
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/h/hub.html%5B/url%5D

Seriously, I think that from a home users perspective that switches and routers are just faster and more expensive than a Hub (i’ve always used another pc as a router). But then I’ve never worked with either one, so perhaps another lounger can enlighten us.

Cheers

Reply | Quote

I’ve seen switches for only 25-35 dollars so I don’t consider that a big waste of money as opposed to a $20 hub. Aren’t switches faster than hubs?

Reply | Quote

They might be faster….but the key question here is, for your your money, do they really make any noticeable difference? There’s no reason you can’t use them, I just never found a compelling reason to do so. Different applications – different hardware.

Reply | Quote

I agree with Catharine 95% – I use a Linksys router at home because of the NAT (Network Address Translation) and hardware firewall. Setting up an additional system as a router requires more effort, but is also more flexible. A hub is perfectly fine in most cases, and a switch in a small network is a needless waste of money. Switches really come into play in large networks with high speeds.

Reply | Quote

Just a thought on hubs vs. switches – I’ve read that hubs are relatively easy for a malefactor to drop a packet sniffer on, and that switches are more difficult.

Reply | Quote

jrebennack:
WebGenii gives, in an earlier response, some good web pages that properly define hub, switch, and router. From a home networking perspective here are some practical notes.

In most cases you already have a device (a DSL “modem” or cable modem) that connects your “phone line” to your PC (or Mac). The connection from your modem to your computer is usually via Ethernet. If you have only one computer this is all you require. If you have more than one computer you should use a router to connect to a hub or switch and then to your computers. The router should be capable of providing NAT, Network Address Translation. This allows multiple computers to use the single IP that your service provider gave you by pretending to be a single IP on the DSL (cable) side while supporting multiple IPs on the Ethernet side. This also provides a layer of security as the outside world does not see the actual IP address of your computers.

Which to use a hub or switch? If the primary purpose of all of this is to allow multiple computers to use the same DSL (cable) connection it really doesn’t matter, either will work fine. That said, the price of a router and hub with cables will be very near to the price of a combination router/switch. A single router/switch will generally have a smaller footprint, require no interconnect cables, and will generally be easier to manage as opposed to a separate router and hub. Given the limited cost savings and the advantages noted, the switch is usually the better buy.

WebGenii also notes that she has used a PC as a router, which will work fine. The down side is that if that computer is used by another user performance can take a hit. And if it’s a Windows 95/98/ME the frequent Blue Screen of Death can shut down both users.

I hope this helps.

Reply | Quote

If you’re using a PC as a router, wouldn’t that PC need two NICs (network interface cards) – one to handle the connection to the WAN (or for most of us – the cable/DSL modem), and another to connect to the hub/switch for the LAN (the home network)? I’ve never done it this way, so I’m not sure.

When we got DSL at home, I immediately dropped in a LinkSys Cable/DSL Router and never looked back. I’m sure there are pros and cons to this, but for a typical home network, it just seems like the easiest (least work) way to connect a home network to the internet. I could have configured a server to handle DHCP and act as the router, but that seems like overkill for 3-4 PCs.

Reply | Quote

Yes you are totally right about the two NICs. It just happened that I had an “extra” PC and NIC. And a need to experiment with Windows 2000 server. I realize that combination wouldn’t work for everyone. And if you had to go and aquire the Hardware and Software it wouldn’t be cheap.
Before Win2K I used http://www.avirt.com/%5B/url%5D software – and it was pretty easy – minimal configuration. I can’t say that for Win2K .

Cheers

Reply | Quote

Further to Catharine’s remarks…

That’s how I have my Win2000 router set up – NIC #1 connects to the outside world, and Routing and Remote Access services provides the bridge to NIC #2, which supplies that connectivity to the PCs on the “hidden” network. This is necessary for what I do at the office – but I wouldn’t feel the need for it at home because like you, I have the DSL router installed. Drop it in, plug your cables in, and never think twice about it. For my usage needs at home, using a PC as the router would be akin to shooting a flea with an elephant gun. It would get the job done, but for me at home – what a waste of resources!!

Reply | Quote

Glad I got this right. I won’t tell you what company I work for. [whew – picture a smiley wiping its brow]
[indent]

---

For my usage needs at home, using a PC as the router would be akin to shooting a flea with an elephant gun. It would get the job done, but for me at home – what a waste of resources!!

---

[/indent]Not to mention the cruelty inflicted on the defenseless flea.

Reply | Quote

As well as using the computer’s resources, using a computer as a network interface requires that it be up and running, so that if you want to use computer #2, computer #1 must be on. I found that this didn’t make sense in my little network world (2 computers connected to a linksys befsr41 router with 4 port switch, connected to a cable modem) In my configuration, each computer has independent access to the net, and there’s room for 2 more computers before cascading another switch to add more (up to 253 or some such number). This cost about $75, not including NIC cards. Works for me

kip

Reply | Quote

OK. I have a cable/dsl router and 2 PC’s. Do I need a second NIC in 1 PC?? How do I hook up the hidden network and can i share files/printers without a hidden network???

Thanks

Reply | Quote

You need 1 NIC in each computer that connects to the router. Two NICs in a single computer is unnecessary – you’d know if you needed that. All systems should have DHCP enabled for the Local Area Connection (‘obtain an IP address automatically’). Firewall software could also interfere with networking, making the network invisible to the PCs that are connected.

Your router should enable you to share as many computers as it has ports. Make sure you are not connected to the Uplink port on the router; some routers and hubs also tie port 1 to the uplink (meaning that they are internally cross-wired). Swap network cables if you are having problems and see if the problem follows the cable.

Reply | Quote

Actually you can do it with one NIC if you use Sygate’s Home Network software. It has a single NIC option that works fine, and all you need is a simple hub to interconnect your network and cable or DSL modem.

I have discovered, however, that the big drawback to using one PC as a “server” is that it has to be on for any other networked computer to have access to the internet. Thus, I believe I’ll invest in a router so my wife can use her computer even if mine is off or having problems. It will definitely reduce the number of complaints I hear when my computer is down.

Reply | Quote

IMHO, I think this thread wondered off course. Here’s what I tell folks.

If going broadband (cable modem or DSL), get a router even if you will only ever have one pc connected – the NAT hardware firewall is essential for “always connected” systems. And there are many offerings – I like Linksys but D-Link, SYS, NetGear, Cisco, and others make several models.

If you might one day add a second PC, (wife, kids, test system, etc.) get a router with a built in 4 port switch – most already have 4 – some have 8 or more. The point is that a router with 4 port switch will most likely cost less than separate router and switch.

Don’t forget that someday you might want to add a networked printer to your home network – a network printer offers several advantages; everyone can print to it, you don’t have to open file and print sharing on a PC if it is directly connected to that pc, AND you can still print if all other PCs are turned off.

If you need to add additional ports, get a switch. They are only a few dollars more than hubs and offer a couple advantages, the main one being duplex operation – that is they talk both directions at the same time (like talking on a phone instead of over a 2-way radio). When I first set up my network, I had a hub feeding two distant PCs in the kid’s rooms and a printer through a HP Jet Direct print server. If my daughter was downloading tunes, and someone was printing, the third PC’s Internet access slowed to a crawl – and that was with a 10/100 Hub. I bought a 10/100 switch and everyone was happy.

One more point to consider, if the second PC is some distance away, a separate switch (a hub will work too but we are getting switches – not hubs, remember?) can greatly extend the reach of your network. They say up to 150 feet on a ethernet (with the interference in my old house and with all the electronics stuff, I felt lucky when I got green lights to the computer in the basement 60 feet down the line).

And finally, after you get your cable/DSL router, even though it has NAT, get a personal firewall on every connected system. I like Zone Alarm (it works and it’s FREE). Norton also makes an excellent one and I hear (I have not seen it – but I suspect it is good) McAfee has one too. And of course a good virus scanner with up to date signatures.

Bill (AFE7Ret)
Freedom isn't free!

Reply | Quote

Hi Bill,

You’ve outlined just about exactly the scheme I intend to install, and thanks for all the tips.

By the way, Sygate (http://www.sygate.com) also offers a free firewall module. It seems to work rather well including graphical representation of input, output and “hits.”

Reply | Quote

Glad to help – I hope it was (will be) of use to others too. BTW – I don’t know where I got SYS, I meant SMC.

Bill (AFE7Ret)
Freedom isn't free!

Reply | Quote

I’ll start by saying that a home network is just a dream for me, not a reality…yet. Your post was very informative, but I have a question or two.

1. Re: networked printer. I’ve always pictured my home network set up with the printer connected directly to the “primary” computer (my PC). The second PC (my wife’s) could access that printer via whatever connection I build. From your post, I gather that the networked printer should be connected to both computers via a switch…?

2. I have a fairly new Win XP Home Edition computer and an older Pentium running Win 98SE (Packard Bell). What problems will I have connecting these two machines? I read very recently about how WinXP Home is really NOT designed for networking, although the machine shipped with an ethernet port. The author noted that Pro is the better choice, but how many off-the-shelf machines do you see with Win XP Pro?! The problems he mentioned seemed to develop when freshman students try to hook up their new laptops to a college campus network.

3. I note your comment about never going back to dial-up. Well, I still have dial-up–it’s cheap and reliable–and I can’t justify the significant cost increase involved in moving to cable. I’m paying less that eight bucks a month for 120 hours. It’s a little slow, yes, but my chief concern is whether I’ll have any peculiar problems making this work in a network.

Reply | Quote

I’m going to let somebody else address your first question, as I’m not completely sure of myself in that area of home networking (yet).

As for your question regarding networking your XP Home and and Win98 SE computers…. I am running a similar setup myself. XP Home on my laptop, and WinME on my desktop. These machines are currently connected, through a LINKSYS 4 Port Router. After I realized my firewall software was working too well , I was able to see each machine from the other without a problem.

You’re right in one sense, XP Home is NOT designed for Corporate or domain networking. Simple peer to peer, and home networks, not a problem!

I hope this helps!

Reply | Quote

In most cases it’s fine to have the printer connected to a computer. You can share the printer so that other computers on the network have access. Windows has built-in File and Printer sharing that takes care of this. Having the router and firewall up helps prevent sharing your Files and Printers with the world.

Reply | Quote

Let’s see if I can clear this up a bit.
1. Network printer – You certainly can have the common printer attached directly to the Primary (your) PC. You open file and print sharing on your PC and allow your wife access to the printer. There are two distinct disadvantages to this configuration; (1) you have to open file and print sharing on your PC, this increases the vulnerability of your PC to bad guys – some viruses spread then, by looking for those openings and spread themselves to other PCs on that network, and (2) your PC must be turned on and working properly for others to use the printer. Another disadvantage is that your PC will suffer a small performance hit while she is printing.

With a separate print server, anyone on your home network can print to the printer (even at the same time – the print server will manage the job queue). Your system can be turned off and she will still be able to print. And if she is printing, it will not affect the performance on your system. Many newer printers have print servers and an Ethernet NIC (network interface card) built in. You can buy a separate print server for $50 – $60, OR, several router manufacturers are starting to make cable/dsl routers with 4-port switch, NAT firewall, and a print server built in! D-Link has one for under $70 – that’s a good deal and D-Link makes good stuff.

2. Window XP Home was designed to work great in a small network environment. It was not designed to “manage” networks and does not have some of the security features corporate networks need. For SOHOs, XP Home works fine. And you can mix and match with no problems with XP, WinMe or Win98.

3. In your particular case, if you are set on staying with dial-up (although I recommend everyone go broadband – either cable or DSL – especially if they will be doing any research or general surfing for information) then you own proposal should work fine – just be aware of the caveats I mentioned.

BTW, I don’t know if you have a second phone line for your Internet connectivity, but turning that in offsets most of the cost of a cable connection if you already have cable TV. My cable connection adds $40/month to my cable TV bill. I was paying $19.95 for unlimited access and another $16.95 for the second phone line. If there is a choice between DSL and cable, I’d go cable. But even if only DSL is available in your area, even though that works over phone lines, you do not need a second line. Something to ponder. I do promise, if you or your wife do any surfing, research, or send or received family pictures by email, you will love high speed.

Bill (AFE7Ret)
Freedom isn't free!

Reply | Quote

Thank you for one of the best discussions of home networking I’ve seen!

I know I’d “love the speed” of a cable modem. I use a T-1 line at work, and it’s terrific! No, I don’t have a second phone line–guess I just don’t spend all THAT much time surfing! I’m tempted, though!

Reply | Quote

Bill: Just a quick update to let you know I’ve taken your advice. We now have a cable modem, and you are quite right: Dial-up just don’t cut it! Even my wife is very impressed. So impressed, in fact, that we went out and bought another WinXP machine so she can have her own! This week I’ll set up the network.

Thanks again for the advice!

Reply | Quote

Hey Lucas – Glad you finally took the jump. I am sure you noticed the tremendous speed difference right away – and with a new system, there had to have been many megabytes of updates and patches to install. What’s been nice with XP, so far in my experience, is that as soon as it sees the network, it configures itself to work with it. It seems MS is finally getting things right.

Good luck and thanks for the update.

Bill (AFE7Ret)
Freedom isn't free!

Reply | Quote

I purchased the same router but I’m having trouble sharing printers and files. Any ideas as to how to accomplish this? I have 1 NIC in each (2) computer and my ADSL modem is connected to my Linksys cable/dsl/4-port router. What am I doing wrong???
Thanks

Reply | Quote

News in brief:
Hub – transports data / requests to all on the network
Swithc – transports data / requests only to the PC being talked to therefore more efficient.
Efficient – the greater the number of PCs on the network.
Less than 4 PCs and users working at once then either Hub or Switch.
Don’t forget 10, 100, 10/100, full duplex and half duplex. Best is 10/100 full duplex capable.
That said, I have 4 PCs two users at most and a 4 port 10 Mbps hub at home.

Reply | Quote