10GbE for home

install gentoo

You'd be better off spending that money on something that can actually saturate 1Gbp/s

You'll need cat7 and an Intel x520/x540

>5+ port managed 10GbE switches under $700

Good luck!

>>58404039
/thread.

used NICs are affordable, switches are fucking ripoffs still

>>58403936
>Anyone have any recommendations for some new or used NICs and switches for 10GbE? Price is a concern, so cheap older gear is fine. I'd rather run copper than fiber for distance reasons (like 100ft run across my house to another room), so SFP+ fiber stuff doesn't seem viable.
How many ports do you need, how much do you have to spend, do you need layer 2 or a layer 3 switch, do you care about power consumption and are you willing to deal with loud fans.

>>58404008
The X520 is the SFP+ variant you tard. You can't use CAT7 with it.

>inb4 that one HP SFP+ RJ45 module
its limited to 30m

>>58404039
They exist, you can get Cisco 3750Es for $100-$200 which have 2 10GbE ports each and stack them.

>>58404004
What about latency? Shouldn't individual packets be transferred faster?

>>58405872
No. Most 10GbE NICs have offload features which wait till a 64kb block is filled before they start transfering. Also it depends on the switch, store and forward, versus cut through. For 1GbE media type matters a lot, fiber has a order of magnitude better latency than copper.

>>58403936
You're paying a premium for speeds you will probably never reach.
1Gbps is still fine for pretty much any situation. And in case you do need more, there's always link aggregation which cost magnitudes less than setting up a 10Gbps network

>>58403936
>get 10G 2 port PCI card
>no checksum offloading so I can only get about 2G before my CPU maxes out
I've been meemed.

>>58406029
You're the meme for buying a card without TOE

>>58406029
>>no checksum offloading so I can only get about 2G before my CPU maxes out
You know you can configure RSS to fix this?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/saponsqlserver/2012/01/11/network-settings-network-teaming-receive-side-scaling-rss-unbalanced-cpu-load/

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-09 at 2.33.02 PM.png (276KB, 1042x694px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1042x694px

>>58406001
>You're paying a premium for speeds you will probably never reach.
>1Gbps is still fine for pretty much any situation.

>>58406001
>there's always link aggregation which cost magnitudes less than setting up a 10Gbps network
Also link aggregation only helps if there are multiple data streams. For a single data stream like a file copy, it wont do shit

>>58405872
latency should only improve for >60%~ as per queuing theory. Up until that latency doesn't change much.

>>58409241
60% utilization that is. I forgot a word.