Uneducated pleb here. Why would you need a managed switch in

>>58930984
you're not thinking in large enough terms, when you get into the hundreds and thousands of computers and printers, all interconnected with a server there's just too much for unmanaged switches to handle and too much at stake for a plug it in and hope it works approach

>>58930984
>Why would you need a managed switch in a business? What is wrong with just plugging shit in and hope it works?
Because it's a huge hassle when shit doesn't work.

Managed switch allow automatic configuration and organisation.

why do we need car mechanics? can't we just hop in and hope it never breaks?

why do we need doctors? can't we just live and hope nothing goes wrong?

>>58930984
vlans

>why would you need a managed switch?
I can tell that you have never worked in enterprise. I'll wait until you climb into a few ceilings with little to no clue before I tell you why they are nice.

>>58930984
>Why would you need a managed switch in a business?

- redundant topology (unmanaged switches cannot into (R)STP)
- link aggregation if one link is not fast enough
- isolate different port groups so retards can't flood the entire network
- port mirroring for wireshark

>>58930984
>It seems like IT professionals like to create work for themselves to have a purpose.

Quite the contrary. They are essentially working themselves out of a job everyday with the push for more automation. More automation = less reliance on people.

You will always need Desktop Support positions, because you have idiots who don't know to plug in a keyboard, printer jams, etc.

However, infrastructure management is becoming extremely automated. Especially with big cloud providers like AWS, Azure, Google, etc. pushing IaaS. You can literally automate a virtualized instance to increase it's memory or cpu count when more capacity is needed and scale down when it's not (this tech is actually several years old now, but just an example). No need for some sysadmin sitting in a NOC to do it manually anymore. There is 1000's of other use cases.

I think we all fell for the bait.

>>58931019
That's not an argument, and the analogy is nowhere near correct. Try again.

>>58930984
VLANS, STP, Port Aggregation, Port Security, etc.

>>58931306
take a hint faggot

>>58930984
kill yourself

File: 1479883704003.jpg (34KB, 680x554px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 680x554px

>>58930984

File: 16602309_1441218552595370_7345130221332632160_o.jpg (56KB, 1069x829px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1069x829px

>>58930984
kys you're self

>>58930984
Separating different subnets out onto different vlans. Not only does this physically separate networks on the same switch but also can go some way to reducing broadcast chatter and general overhead on the LAN. Read a fucking book!

>>58930984

This is bait and I'm a moron for answering this but whatever...

>How do you create vlans, port security and 802.1x and control spanning tree topologies and such without a managed switch?

These are three examples of basic funcionalities you are going to need at the moment you hit the 100-200 por usage.

File: 1485908884071.png (296KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 500x500px

>>58930984

Because those are for idiotic amounts of computers, for silly reasons

Not bait, knew many "network administrators" who have always been in an environment where plugging it in just works. Then for example they go somewhere where there is no DHCP and within 15 minutes they lose their shit and call it impossible. Seen the same thing happen for port forwarding when the router didn't support uPNP.

>>58930984
Two words: Broadcast storms.

>>58933253
>no DHCP and within 15 minutes they lose their shit and call it impossible
sounds like a fukkin nightmare tbhfam

>>58930984
VLANs and queuing become necessary pretty quickly. If you work for a company with 5 people it doesn't matter. If you work for a company with at least 100 it does.

>>58933253
Nope, I refuse to believe that.
For my sanities sake.

>>58933253
To be fair, if you don't have DHCP and your network isn't for some hardcore industrial stuff, you're likely doing it wrong.

>>58931023
It took 4 replies to get the correct answer.

>>58933438
Want me to link to the story? Posted it in a thread a couple days ago. It is actually more sane to chop it up and look at it step by step, makes you feel better and not worse.

>>58933783
Do expect all networks to have DHCP point is you should know it can be turned off. As I said I've seen "router administrators" who haven't even gone to the http interface. Know some who don't even know it exists and they've been "managing" it for years.

something like this is so retarded, you can't make it up, which is how you know it happened

File: goym_knows.jpg (47KB, 601x820px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 601x820px

>>58930984
>It seems like IT professionals like to create work for themselves to have a purpose.
shut it down!!

>>58930984
Theres things called VLANs, Power over Ethernet, Radius, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

There is so god damn much you can't do with a "dumb" switch. Do you really want the HIPPA protected Pharmacy PCs at your grocery store or payment devices like credit card readers to be on the same VLAN as the public facing "apply here!" resume PC?

Of course not.

All because it's not necessary in 99.99% of home usage, doesn't mean it isn't there for a good reason in the commercial space.

>>58934041
It surprises me that the answer came at all, this being /g/. Just look at the premise:
>hope it works?

>>58930984
Because you need VLANs to separate broadcast domains. Do you really want requests being broadcasted throughout your entire network when it really only pertains to a certain number of users?

I guess you could just daisy chain about 20 5 port gigabit switches together if you really wanted to do things that way.

>>58930984
- traffic separation for qos as well as security
- ease of management when you have thousands of ip addresses
- link aggregation
- motherfucking vlans, so may vlans

I see people who are on your level of education every day in my job. You'll figure out why managed devices are required when you're working with huge databases, file servers, web servers and a VDI environment or two that are competing for resources or when you don't want parts of the network to be able to touch/be touched by the others. Load balancing and link aggregation are life savers when a single connection would get choked.

Good for satisfying regulatory requirements too.
You can put in place VLANs and port security.
Ticks many boxes, stops people getting places they shouldn't

>>58936024
>>58935993
>>58935574
>>58935473
Catch 22 of all this is hippies and "uneducated plebs" will just disregard it all. Goes back to this:
>You don't know what you don't know

Not defending this in any way. I'm just letting you know how it happens.

>Hmmm I've been doing the same 2-3 router functions for 10 years
>It always had the same choices (not really, I just ignored the rest)
>Someone else is talking about this "vlan" thing
>Vlans are not routers because I've never used them before so they don't exist so they are making this up

Worst is when they say the need, but ignore you when you say the feature.
>I need a way to separate networks at one building
>VLANs.
>Hmmm never heard of that just going to go buy 3 routers

seen it happen

>>58936093

All of the switches in my house are managed, each floor is segregated and certain devices are limited via QOS to make sure my server has the most possible bandwidth at all times.

I might have a problem

>>58935403
>As I said I've seen "router administrators" who haven't even gone to the http interface
Those can't be called network admins

>>58930984
VLANs
speed limiting
redundancy
dhcp helper

>>58937273
>>58935403

You don't ever have to see the "http interface" if you manage your routers and switches from the cli ;)

Here's at least one reason:

>need to run windows on your network because business software that hasn't been updated since 2003
>retarded employee really really needs to use their own virus infected laptop
>they try plugging said laptop into the network
>managed switch has rules to prevent this
>unprotected samba shares (because of retarded employees) don't get cryptolocked

>>58937301
>dhcp helper
explain