Thursday, July 16th 2020

QNAP Introduces its First 2.5GbE Network Switch

QNAP Systems, Inc., a leading computing, networking and storage solution innovator, today launched its first 2.5 GbE network switch - the QSW-1105-5T. Featuring five 2.5 GbE ports, plug-and-play set up, automatic loop detection and blocking, and auto-negotiation functions, the QSW-1105-5T allows users to easily build a 2.5 GbE network environment for their home or business.

"For those looking to upgrade their network environment, the QSW-1105-5T 2.5 GbE strikes a balance between performance and cost. Users can instantly upgrade their network environment to 2.5 GbE using existing network cables, allowing them to take advantage of next-generation 2.5 GbE NAS and computers," said Frank Liao, Product Manager of QNAP.
The QSW-1105-5T features five 2.5GbE/NBASE-T RJ45 ports that support 2.5G/ 1G/ 100M transfer speeds. With no complex settings required, the QSW-1105-5T supports auto-negotiation that optimizes transfer speeds and performance for each connected device, while its built-in management mechanism ensures smooth transmission of network packets. It also features network loop detection that can automatically lock looped ports to ensure the network environment quickly resumes normal operation.

The QSW-1105-5T features a fanless design for near-silent operation. The unique ventilated construction assists in cooling while maintaining high performance.
Add your own comment

22 Comments on QNAP Introduces its First 2.5GbE Network Switch

#1
bonehead123
better late than never, hahaha :D

2.5g isn't exactly next-gen tech IMHO, seeins how it's been around for several years now but laying dormant waiting on more mobo & NIC mfgr's to get off their lazy asses and bring it to the mainstream market...

Also why do the switch/router mfgr's insist on saying that these things have 5 ports, when in fact one of them has to be used for the incoming connection ? kinda deceptive if you ask me ....
Posted on Reply
#2
AnarchoPrimitiv
Well, I guess those 2.5g NICs on Z490 boards are finally not a marketing gimmick, although I still think it's ridiculous for the consumer market to go to 2.5g instead of straight to 10gig or at least 5gig based on the fact that SATAIII SSDs are a pretty common feature these days
Posted on Reply
#3
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
bonehead123
Also why do the switch/router mfgr's insist on saying that these things have 5 ports, when in fact one of them has to be used for the incoming connection ? kinda deceptive if you ask me ....
?

Because they are five full duplex ports. If you connect 5 PCs they will be able to communicate with each other provided one of them acts as a DHCP server or if you have static IPs manually set. If you mean for WAN/internet connectivity then surely you have to use one of them for the router/modem.
Posted on Reply
#4
chodaboy19
This is the only 5-port copper 2.5GbE switch I have seen so far that could be affordable, unmanaged, non-sfp+ and fanless. It looks like a great addition to any network with CAT 5E looking to boost network performance without redoing their cable runs.
Posted on Reply
#5
bonehead123
chodaboy19
(1) This is the only 5-port copper 2.5GbE switch I have seen so far that could be affordable, unmanaged, non-sfp+ and fanless. (2) It looks like a great addition to any network with CAT 5E looking to boost network performance without redoing their cable runs.
Your 1st statement is true enough, however the 2nd part is not, as indicated on the attached cable comparison chart that I found a while back while at an IEEE seminar :)
Cheeseball
If you mean for WAN/internet connectivity then surely you have to use one of them for the router/modem.
Yes this is what I meant :)
Posted on Reply
#6
TheLostSwede
Not too bad, about $100 in Taiwan.
24h.pchome.com.tw/prod/DRAFE2-A900AOQUL
AnarchoPrimitiv
Well, I guess those 2.5g NICs on Z490 boards are finally not a marketing gimmick, although I still think it's ridiculous for the consumer market to go to 2.5g instead of straight to 10gig or at least 5gig based on the fact that SATAIII SSDs are a pretty common feature these days
The thing is, 2.5Gbps Ethernet controllers are priced nearly at the same level as 1Gbps Ethernet controllers and are physically very similar in terms of size. 5Gbps and 10Gbps controllers, no so much. The latter also produce a lot more heat, whereas 2.5Gbps controllers use about as much power and produce about as much heat as a 1Gbps controller. Oh and 2.5Gbps uses Cat 5e up to 100m, whereas even 5Gbps can only run over Cat 5e up to 55m, but I guess for most home users that won't matter much.
Posted on Reply
#7
Disparia
Nice. All three motherboards in my buy later cart have 2.5Gb controllers so I'll certainly consider this switch when that happens.
Posted on Reply
#8
fynxer
Nice, this is real crap, we are actually halting home NIC evolution with 2.5Gbit.

With SSD in our computers 10Gbit home network should be the next natural step.

10Gbit is real OLD tech now so 2.5Gbit is ridiculous.

Hear people say that there is no demand for 10Gbit BUT THEY ARE WRONG.

People said the same thing about cpu cores when Intel insisted to only do max 4 cores for mainstream, there is no demand for more cpu cores.

Then AMD came with up to 16 cpu cores for main stream and the market just exploded.

If 10Gbit became standard on medium to high end motherboards the accessories market would just explode with massive upgrades with everything from NAS, nic cabels and all kind of network equipment.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLostSwede
fynxer
Nice, this is real crap, we are actually halting home NIC evolution with 2.5Gbit.

With SSD in our computers 10Gbit home network should be the next natural step.

10Gbit is real OLD tech now so 2.5Gbit is ridiculous.

Hear people say that there is no demand for 10Gbit BUT THEY ARE WRONG.

People said the same thing about cpu cores when Intel insisted to only do max 4 cores for mainstream, there is no demand for more cpu cores.

Then AMD came with up to 16 cpu cores for main stream and the market just exploded.

If 10Gbit became standard on medium to high end motherboards the accessories market would just explode with massive upgrades with everything from NAS, nic cabels and all kind of network equipment.
So you would happily pay the $40 premium per motherboard to get 10Gbps? Most people wouldn't. In fact, most people use Wi-Fi...
10Gbps has never been as cheap as it is now per card, but that doesn't mean it has mass consumer appeal.
Not saying that 2.5Gbps does either, but it doesn't really add any cost to motherboards at least.
Posted on Reply
#10
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
TheLostSwede
So you would happily pay the $40 premium per motherboard to get 10Gbps? Most people wouldn't. In fact, most people use Wi-Fi...
10Gbps has never been as cheap as it is now per card, but that doesn't mean it has mass consumer appeal.
Not saying that 2.5Gbps does either, but it doesn't really add any cost to motherboards at least.
I believe for the high-end motherboards, that extra $40 could be worth it, especially since the general idea with having a high-end computer may also mean having a sophisticated network.

I still stand by having a separate USB 3.2 Gen 2(x2) "dongle" that can saturate the 10/20 Gbps purported bandwidth though. At least I would be able to move it from system to system if need be.
Posted on Reply
#11
efikkan
I don't care if most people are using Wifi on their Ipad, we are not most people.
Most of us here are power users, or at least above the average consumer. If you use your computer for anything productive or a lot of gaming, you need proper networking. Most power users have some kind of NAS or file server, it doesn't take a lot before network speed becomes an annoyance.

But I wouldn't care what's included on motherboards if only 10G add-in cards and switches were affordable. The first time I considered investing in 10G equipment is seriously 10 years ago, prices haven't moved that much.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheLostSwede
Talked to an ex colleague at QNAP and he doesn't recon we'll see a similar 10Gbps product for under $200 for at least another couple of years... :(
I should point out that he's one of the PMs.
Posted on Reply
#13
efikkan
TheLostSwede
Talked to an ex colleague at QNAP and he doesn't recon we'll see a similar 10Gbps product for under $200 for at least another couple of years... :(
I should point out that he's one of the PMs.
Too bad, their QSW-308S ($179) isn't that far off; 3x 10G SFP+ (plus 8 1G RJ45). If only these were RJ45s instead, then it could serve as a decent transition for many.

The best alternatives I've seen so far is;
Asus XG-U2008 ($250) 2x 10G + 10x 1G
Netgear GS110MX ($170) 2x 10G + 10x 1G
Netgear XS505M ($350) 4x 10G
Netgear XS508M ($627) 8x 10G
(All US prices just for reference)
Posted on Reply
#14
Chrispy_
99% of all ISPs either provide a 1-box modem/router/switch/wifi-AP, or a two box solution with a seperate modem, and then a generic router/switch/wifi

So what QNAP need to do is make a 2.5G router/switch wifi, because nobody wants to add an additional box to their loop just for 2.5G. Someone has to do it, might as well be QNAP since people wanting faster LAN speeds in their homes are likely to want them for NAS reasons.
Posted on Reply
#15
efikkan
Chrispy_
99% of all ISPs either provide a 1-box modem/router/switch/wifi-AP, or a two box solution with a seperate modem, and then a generic router/switch/wifi

So what QNAP need to do is make a 2.5G router/switch wifi, because nobody wants to add an additional box to their loop just for 2.5G. Someone has to do it, might as well be QNAP since people wanting faster LAN speeds in their homes are likely to want them for NAS reasons.
I disagree.
Firstly, I don't think most people mind an extra box if it provides something useful. Most people do already use multiple boxes, since the bundled Wifi/router/switches are usually crap anyway. And even if there is a built-in switch, it is probably 4 LAN ports, 1 will probably be used for another access point in a better spot, 1 for "TV", and then you have just 2 left.

Personally, my issue with ISP provided equpiment and general consumer grade stuff is lack of standardization of physical dimensions and mounting options. Most of these are impossible to stack, and can't be rackmounted normally. The best option is often to screw them in a rack shelf or use velcro tape.
Posted on Reply
#16
Chrispy_
efikkan
I disagree.
Firstly, I don't think most people mind an extra box if it provides something useful. Most people do already use multiple boxes, since the bundled Wifi/router/switches are usually crap anyway. And even if there is a built-in switch, it is probably 4 LAN ports, 1 will probably be used for another access point in a better spot, 1 for "TV", and then you have just 2 left.

Personally, my issue with ISP provided equpiment and general consumer grade stuff is lack of standardization of physical dimensions and mounting options. Most of these are impossible to stack, and can't be rackmounted normally. The best option is often to screw them in a rack shelf or use velcro tape.
This may be regionally dependent then. 1-box is king in the UK because that's how every major ISP does it and that probably covers like 98+ of the UK market or something like that. Hell, some of our 1-box routers are actually pretty decent!

I've been supporting WFH staff for the last three months and out of several hundred people, not a single one of them has had a separate modem when being asked to restart their modem/router for troubleshooting (Just because the routers are OK doesn't mean the ISPs are any good).

I included 2-box since I know that's a thing that used to happen regularly here over a decade ago and it sounds like that is still very much a normal thing in the US.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLostSwede
Chrispy_
99% of all ISPs either provide a 1-box modem/router/switch/wifi-AP, or a two box solution with a seperate modem, and then a generic router/switch/wifi

So what QNAP need to do is make a 2.5G router/switch wifi, because nobody wants to add an additional box to their loop just for 2.5G. Someone has to do it, might as well be QNAP since people wanting faster LAN speeds in their homes are likely to want them for NAS reasons.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here.
I have a 10 port switch (2x 10Gbps), a router, a cable modem (technically a Wi-Fi/router/modem, but set to modem only mode, as it's crap as a router) and two Wi-Fi access points.
So yes, people are willing to have more than one box. I wish I didn't have the cable modem, but hey, it's how I get my internet...
Also also need Wi-Fi on each floor, despite the physical floor space not being that big, the three story house I live in, is built with a lot of concrete and rebar, which means Wi-Fi penetration is crap.

QNAP doesn't make routers and thank god for that, as their NAS software is full of security issues as it is.
Chrispy_
This may be regionally dependent then. 1-box is king in the UK because that's how every major ISP does it and that probably covers like 98+ of the UK market or something like that. Hell, some of our 1-box routers are actually pretty decent!

I've been supporting WFH staff for the last three months and out of several hundred people, not a single one of them has had a separate modem when being asked to restart their modem/router for troubleshooting (Just because the routers are OK doesn't mean the ISPs are any good).

I included 2-box since I know that's a thing that used to happen regularly here over a decade ago and it sounds like that is still very much a normal thing in the US.
The UK is also behind most of the world when it comes to internet connectivity and what it costs. I mean, most of the UK is still stuck using ADSL2+ after all...
Yes, most ISPs (that provide hardware) have one box solutions, but it's not suitable for everyone. Also, how much control do you have over your BT box? Zero? Less than zero?
Most ISPs use this to connect remotely to your router.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069
Some ISPs even have simple backdoor admin logins, there was a huge scandal a few years back in Sweden about this. I doubt it's all that different in other countries where the ISPs support the equipment.
I don't trust my ISP to have a remote connection into my home, but each to their own I guess.
Posted on Reply
#18
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
bonehead123
Your 1st statement is true enough, however the 2nd part is not, as indicated on the attached cable comparison chart that I found a while back while at an IEEE seminar
Cat5e can do 10Gbps over short distances, ~10m. Cat5e will do 2.5Gbps over the same distances that it does 1Gbps basically, it's part of the reason 2.5Gbps was developed. That chart is old and incorrect.
Posted on Reply
#19
efikkan
newtekie1
Cat5e can do 10Gbps over short distances, ~10m. Cat5e will do 2.5Gbps over the same distances that it does 1Gbps basically, it's part of the reason 2.5Gbps was developed. That chart is old and incorrect.
Yes, Cat 5e is plenty for 100m of 2.5 Gb/s.
I'm a bit curious about 10 Gb/s though, if I were to try that out I would at least check for packet loss and stability. Upgrading to Cat 6/6A is cheap compared to 10 Gb/s network cards and switches, so someone investing that much might want to upgrade cables too. The only negative is the work effort involved.

But regardless, anyone installing/buying new cables should go Cat 6A, even if they don't plan to use 10 Gb/s for another 5 years. The extra cost is negligible, so why not?
Posted on Reply
#20
Chrispy_
TheLostSwede
The UK is also behind most of the world when it comes to internet connectivity and what it costs. I mean, most of the UK is still stuck using ADSL2+ after all...
Yes, most ISPs (that provide hardware) have one box solutions, but it's not suitable for everyone. Also, how much control do you have over your BT box? Zero? Less than zero?
Most ISPs use this to connect remotely to your router.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069
Some ISPs even have simple backdoor admin logins, there was a huge scandal a few years back in Sweden about this. I doubt it's all that different in other countries where the ISPs support the equipment.
I don't trust my ISP to have a remote connection into my home, but each to their own I guess.
ADSL2+ is getting pretty rare now. Hybrid fibre (FTTC) has been price matched to compete-with/phase-out ADSL2+ for around 4-5 years so you wouldn't still be on it unless you were in a low-density population zone where one cabinet has to cover several square km. According to ISPReview, 95% of the UK population had access to FTTC hybrid fibre in Dec 2017 and Mar 2020's figure was 97%

Don't get me wrong, the UK's rollout of true FTTP fibre is pitiful, but at least the overwhelming majority of the UK is getting 20-50Mbps or so and the better-late-than-never initiatives to subsidise FTTP investment from the last few years are starting to pay off. The UK will be behind for good now, but at least it's not that far behind....
Posted on Reply
#21
TheLostSwede
Chrispy_
Don't get me wrong, the UK's rollout of true FTTP fibre is pitiful, but at least the overwhelming majority of the UK is getting 20-50Mbps or so and the better-late-than-never initiatives to subsidise FTTP investment from the last few years are starting to pay off. The UK will be behind for good now, but at least it's not that far behind....
I remember getting the "stingray" from Alcatel/BT for 512/512Kbps ADSL in the UK, it was amazingly fast at the time, but sadly things went very slow from there.
The UK really bet too heavily on xDSL based technology, much like Australia.
Last time I lived in the UK I paid something stupid for a BT 100Mbps fibre connection and 200Mbps was twice what I was paying.
Anything below 100Mbps can't really be considered decent broadband these days, especially not if the connection is meant for multiple users.

Was stuck in Sweden for a few months and the service changed at my step mums place, but she has 250/100Mbps now for something like £32 a month...
That price doesn't include free hardware though, so I had to get her a router, but as everything is wired with Ethernet, no modem was needed.

I pay something like £22 a month for a 200/30 connection, as I'm stuck with a cable provider as my only sensible option.
Posted on Reply
#22
Chrispy_
Yup, we had a stingray. 512kbps back when half the planet was still on 56K or slower.
I agree that "broadband" implies a wide pipe - wider than that absolute minimum typical application - and with streaming video using up maybe 4-5MB per user, PC and console gaming being in the gigabytes per install, and cloud-based applications requiring large uploads/downloads on a regular basis - 20Mbps should be considered narrowband.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment