This was posted 12 years 1 month 30 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • out of stock

Cisco SFE2010 48 Port Managed Switch $99 @ Computer Alliance (QLD) - Cheapest by $600!!

382
Cisco SFE2010 48 Port Managed Switch $99 @ Computer Alliance (QLD) - Cheapest by $600!!
Go to Deal
thebargainhunter on 04/03/2012 - 20:47 computeralliance.com.au (3397 clicks)

Anyone looking for a business-grade 10/100 + Gigabit switch with plenty of ports can't go past this awesome deal.
Here is the blurb and specs:

Maximize your network availability while simultaneously increasing your number of connections and quality of communications. One of the SFE2010 Ethernet Switch, part of Cisco Small Business Stackable Managed Switches, lets you expand the size of your network securely and reliably.

The SFE2010 features a number of options to ensure that your network won't come crashing to a halt, including fully-redundant stacking and dual firmware images for safe upgrades. Additionally, the integrated security features of this managed switch prevent unauthorized access to your network's critical data. Included quality-of-service (QoS) functionality bolsters your video and voice communications. The SFE2010 also supports unit-stacking: up to four separate, connected switches can be configured via a single web interface.

Additional features of the Cisco SFE2010 Ethernet Switch include:

  • 48x 10/100 Ethernet ports
  • 2x 10/100/1000 Ethernet ports
  • 2x miniGBIC slots for Gigabit Ethernet expansion
  • Secure, encrypted management via SSH and SSL, as well as 802.1x and MAC authentication and filtering
  • Advanced security: ARP Inspection, IP Source Guard, DHCP Snooping, STP Root Guard
  • Support for 802.1q-based VLANs, to segment your network
  • Limited lifetime warranty with one year of technical support and free software fixes
Computing Cisco Network Switch

Related Stores

Computer Alliance
Computer Alliance

closed Comments

  • SBOB on 04/03/2012 - 20:49

    price error?
    Im guessing yes, and therefore not really a 'bargain'

    • thebargainhunter on 04/03/2012 - 20:51
      +3

      Nope - clearing old stock. It's on the front page of their website and shows a $700 price drop. They probably get reimbursed by the distributor for any losses.

      • Computer Alliance on 05/03/2012 - 11:15

        Yes to the first, no to the second.

        Was only small number left to sell out at that price and all are now sold.

        I wasn't aware someone had posted this till now. Apologies to the majority of people ordering who will miss out. Our sales chaps will respond to all orders today, the early ones will be allocated stock. Have now removed the item from our web site

  • c64 on 04/03/2012 - 20:52
    +2

    it's only 10/100

    • thebargainhunter on 04/03/2012 - 20:53
      +3

      With gigabit. 2x gigabit teaming to the server and 10/100 access for the clients is plenty sufficient for many businesses needing simple file access to a server.

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 05/03/2012 - 08:47

        I respectfully disagree. It's nowhere near enough in modern day environment.

        • sjp770 on 05/03/2012 - 09:31

          It's enough for the modern day environment, but if it's designed to last for 5 years (or even 2) I would doubt it would be a wise purchase for the furure.

          But at that price; buy it now, replace it in 12 months!

        • tm001 on 05/03/2012 - 11:07

          I respectfully disagree with your assessment. In a typical office environment it is actually more than enough. In a CAD/graphic studio/Photography/Movie production environment - yes, it may be underpowered, but anywhere else it should happily suffice. An office floor with about 200+ users rarely gets over 200Mbps of uplink traffic (mostly between 20 to 30Mbps). That is based on a SolarWinds monitoring as well as independent MRTG based monitoring.

        • Lord Fart Bucket on 05/03/2012 - 13:20

          Really?

          You don't think you'd see a lag as soon as you try to browse a file server…? You don't think it would impact if you're trying to access an exchange server?

          Sorry, i guess i am used to the gigabit networks. Just standard office here and having had the cabling done about a year ago, i believe there is a massive difference.

  • SmartCover on 04/03/2012 - 21:02
    -6

    IMO, in the home High Definition NAS-HTPC era if you want to steam 1080P DTS MKVs + a couple of small tasks 100mbps might not be enough….

    • eug on 04/03/2012 - 21:10
      +23

      if your home is so big that you need a 48-port business-grade managed switch for it, I think you can afford a gigabit one!

      • ozbguy on 04/03/2012 - 21:15

        lol, exactly.

    • virtual81 on 04/03/2012 - 22:04
      +4

      You'd be able to stream 4 x 1080P MKV's with room to spare over 100mbit.

      • soupiejr on 04/03/2012 - 22:47
        -4

        I highly doubt that is factually provable. I have conducted many experiments and the fact is, a single 100mbit connection is at times unable to sustain even a 720p MKV file at a stable throughput enough to ensure smooth audio-video synchronicity, not to mention a 1080p MKV file. It is true, this is mainly because of wasted bandwidth from Windows, and TCP/IP itself, but the fact of the matter is, gigabit networking is recommended if one expects smooth throughput of 1080p MKV movie all the time.

        • NoobStyles on 04/03/2012 - 23:06
          +4

          even if you transferring ripped UN-compressed blu-ray rips, which you more than likely aren't they only allow for 40Mbit/sec bit rate at a Max, and i'd be surprised if any 1080p movies actually use that much.

          There could be many reasons why a 1080p movie wont stream from 1 computer to another, but this switch alone wont be one of them.

        • hypocrisyinaction on 04/03/2012 - 23:15
          +4

          If your network isn't able to transfer a single 720p bitstream without dropping frames/losing audio sync, the most likely answer is that there's a fault with your network (or the endpoints). 100base-tx is a switched medium with no contention - you can expect within a couple percent of nameplate capacity, which is at least four 1080p streams concurrently as virtual81 mentioned. I run multiple 1080p streams on the local 10/100 network without any problems.

          edit: it's possible that the network adapters are set to autonegotiate they could have negotiated down to 10mbit for some reason (again, most likely a physical failure in the run), which would be borderline inadequate for a 720p stream. Easily rectified if it's just a negotiation mismatch.

        • noz on 05/03/2012 - 08:36

          I have neither had a 720p nor a 1080p MKV file that has had any trouble playing perfectly on a 100Mbit wired network.
          The highest bitrate file I have is 15GB in size and runs for 1.5 hours (2.78 megabytes per sec average).
          My media player is connected to a cheap Linksys 100Mbit switch, which in my tests say this switch can transfer at 10 megabytes per second. Based on this, it can send through 54GB in 1.5 hours . Much higher than the 15GB it needs to send through in this time. I realise the bitrate is variable, but I extremely doubt that it will exceed 10 megabytes per sec at any time.

        • tm001 on 05/03/2012 - 11:11

          Check your port settings and error rates. Check your cables (squeezed under the table? twisted too hard? broken?). Other traffic on the network? SW used for the streaming? But if you have problem playing 720p movie over 100Mbps network someone who understands it should have a look, as your network is definitely not working properly.

      • atlas on 05/03/2012 - 00:46

        It all really depends on the bitrate of your files. It's not as simple as saying 1080p should always stream over 100mbit or 1000mbit is required for 1080p because every video file is different, and the audio stream can also play a big part especially if it is HD audio.

        I do think it unlikely however that a 720p file would have a bitrate exceeding 100mb/s. In my experience, the average 1080p with AC3 or DTS audio can be streamed over 100mbit ethernet. Gigabit just makes the whole experience (such as buffering/seeking) faster.

        • T1OOO on 05/03/2012 - 08:07

          people neet to understand how ethernet actually works before they quote the theoretical maximum,… if the network is getting saturated and you want to access the network your gona have to wait and try untill its clear,…. which when your doing more than a few movies wont happen at 100mbits, gbit, yes

  • quarrymaster on 04/03/2012 - 21:17

    10/100BaseT is slow if you've been transferring large files over gigabit. MYOB networked versions will also need as fast switching as possible.

    • ozbguy on 04/03/2012 - 21:23

      As OP said, you can team the two Gbit ports to a server allowing for 500 megabytes/sec - 250MB/s up and down. But yes, MYOB is a terribly written database that desperately need some SQL lovin'

      • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2012 - 21:42

        Most LACP implementations (including NIC teaming) only use a single physical link per TCP/UDP session. Perfect balancing is impossible because think of a single session with packets sized 1500/50/1500/50/1500/50… it quickly leads to out-of-order packets.

        You can get improved throughput if there are multiple clients, therefore multiple TCP/UDP sessions. In practise, you need to be lucky even for this to work. Most of the time you'll get single-link performance (i.e. 1Gbps).

        I wouldn't put clients on anything less than 1Gbps these days. Even for a cheap SOHO switch this is unlikely to be suitable.

  • llama on 04/03/2012 - 21:43

    10/100 is one way to throttle your worker's torrenting!

    But seriously, anybody who's seriously considering only using old tech like this could probably pic up an old switch second hand for $20 or $30.

    Ebay Completed Items search : http://tinyurl.com/7h9pspj

    • eug on 04/03/2012 - 22:19
      +3

      That completed items search link makes this deal look like a super bargain!

  • wog_ta on 04/03/2012 - 22:00
    -8

    Don't mean to bomb this thread but is the 'OKI B2520MFP Multifunction Laser Printer' any good? also on their site for $79 save $70

    http://www.computeralliance.com.au/parts.aspx?qryPartID=1292…

  • Krisjohn on 04/03/2012 - 22:04

    Anyone know if this would be good for practicing for Cisco certification?

    • nowlan on 04/03/2012 - 23:38
      +2

      I think its one of their SoHo rebadged Linksys models.
      You want a catalyst switch for cisco studies.

      I saw some dirt cheap 2950 on ebay yesterday, and 3550 layer 3 (ccnp level) have dropped since I bought one.
      Get 1-2x 2950 cisco switches for ccna, and learn your vlan commands.

      As to load balancing via LACP, the basic method looks at source and destination MAC address, which wont change between computers, so will choose the same Interface to transmit on.

      The Enterprise switches can use the (randomly selected) source & destination ports which help distribute the load across interfaces better.

      Most home users can suffice with an 8 port unmanaged switch.

    • takigama on 05/03/2012 - 06:43
      +1

      no use at all, cisco certs are on cisco equipment, these linksys models dont have the bits you need to practice with (the most important part being the cli).

      Interestingly, some of the linksys models do have a way for breaking into a very-cisco-like cli (i know the srw series do), but still those arent any use to you.

      As nowlan mentions, get a 2950 on ebay (they're often sub-$50).

      Something else worth looking at if your doing a cisco cert is to go and get the gns3 software stack which emulates various cisco kit.

      • dexy on 05/03/2012 - 12:31

        So what's your cheapo Layer 3 recommendations

        • nowlan on 05/03/2012 - 15:30

          3550 are cheapest layer 3 catalyst switches.
          someone on ocau had 2x for $150 other day, going to list on ebay.
          i paid like $300-400 2 years ago.

  • wog_ta on 04/03/2012 - 22:08

    its seems really cheap but would anyone actually use this at home?

    • eug on 04/03/2012 - 23:07
      +1

      the whirring fan would probably drive you nuts!

    • takigama on 05/03/2012 - 06:45

      i have its larger cousin, the srw2024, which aint bad, a 10/100 switch these days is kinda pointless though.

  • kenneth88 on 04/03/2012 - 22:16

    Shipping 35-100… How much exactly to Sydney??

    Been reading all those manuals and they don't seem to give the stats of each individual port (e.g how much they download/upload) though this is one of the main function for a managed switch…

    Any advice pls?

    • bragains on 05/03/2012 - 02:24
      +1

      Traditionally, managed switches simply mean you can define what VLAN each port lives on, and whether or not the port can/cannot be a trunk. What you could do essentially is to place every port in its own VLAN, and route it. There's a lot of overhead in this though… This also requires that the switch supports netflow export, or SNMP values to a logging facility. If it does, then you'll be able to identify the amount of traffic, source and destination, and perhaps draw some graphs with it!

      EDIT: Most cases, data should be logged against IP addresses and nodes, not ports. That'll make more sense as some ports can be highly dense, i.e. connected to another switch.

  • chuneeperformance on 04/03/2012 - 23:15

    $15 delivery sydney

  • Trance N Dance on 05/03/2012 - 01:31

    Mmmm
    My dorm only has one ethernet port on the wall for net access. So if I plugged this into that port and then the three different computers I have into the switch would that allow me to share the internet access across the 3 computers?

    • Smigit on 05/03/2012 - 07:43
      +3

      Yes, but if you only need a few systems get a four or eight port gigabit switch
      . Smaller, faster and won't take up as much room

    • c64 on 05/03/2012 - 09:30
      +2

      yes, but in your case you can buy a much cheaper one. tp-link gigabit switch: 5 port = $34, 8 port = $44. cheaper, faster, lower power consumption.

      and you don't need to have done a course just to understand how to configure it.

    • Gecko on 05/03/2012 - 09:58

      Just be careful. Plugging smart switches into some University ports will get your port banned.

  • bragains on 05/03/2012 - 02:11

    Is this capable at switching at L3?

    • bragains on 05/03/2012 - 02:17

      From Cisco's website:
      Layer 3

      Layer 3 options
      Static routing; classless interdomain routing (CIDR); 60 static routes; IPv4; forwarding in silicon - wire-speed forwarding of Layer 3 traffic

      —

      This is freaking cheap for any business that have multiple subnets. Probably get one for funsies. FYI this is actually a Linksys originally. Not sure why Cisco decided to rebrand it to themselves.

      • eug on 05/03/2012 - 02:42

        It makes it easier to sell to clients who are partially aware of brands. Cisco sounds more hardcore than Linksys!

        • tonyjzx on 05/03/2012 - 09:01

          a question… since this is a Linksys I suppose it doesn't run ios?

          also yeah bummer this isn't PoE capable…

    • takigama on 05/03/2012 - 06:47

      This is the one thing that makes it half decent really, its layer 3 capabilities would make it a decent "cheap" alternative l3 switch (where a gig model will set you back quite alot more)

  • sonicentropy on 05/03/2012 - 02:45
    +1

    Shame they are not the POE model I would have a use for 20 or so.

  • takigama on 05/03/2012 - 06:52

    If you were going to get this switch, you'd want it for its layer 3 capabilities. Switches that do layer 3 are usually quite a bit more expensive then this.

    However, if you dont need layer 3 routing, theres not much else it has going for it. You can get layer 2 managed switches at comparable prices with gig ports.

    • alvian on 05/03/2012 - 10:25
      +3

      Please show me a 48-port Gbit L2 managed switch for a comparable $100 price.

    • dexy on 05/03/2012 - 12:36

      hmmm, thought it was only layer 2

  • justfrog on 05/03/2012 - 08:14

    I think their $20 M$ wireless mouse is more interesting for home use… http://www.computeralliance.com.au/parts.aspx?qryPartID=1144…

  • techy on 05/03/2012 - 09:15

    sold out now

  • turboboris on 05/03/2012 - 09:15

    Out of stock BOWOW

  • Moots on 05/03/2012 - 10:17
    +1

    Called Computer Alliance for an update because the funds haven't been taken out of my account. He say's they haven't had these In-stock for over 3 years and they weren't aware of the deal.

    Amazing. But not to worry, they are ordering some more in! They couldn't even comment if it'll be Australian Stock or not. =/

    • Computer Alliance on 05/03/2012 - 11:37
      +7

      We had a small number in stock to clear, and dropped the price to $99 to clear out the last batch.

      Orders exceeded stock over the weekend so the item is now off the web site and all stock has been allocated. Some people missed out and all orders will receive responses today.

      I'm not sure where that comment above came from from our sales staff. Our apologies for that, the comment is inaccurate. I would add this was not some sort of special deal in the sense that it was not advertised beyond the web site and we don't specifically inform salesman about clearance items for small volumes of stock (though of course it was on the web site, perhaps the chap you spoke to was looking at a different model).

      Its unlikely we will receive any more of this stock, but since there is obviously interest I will ask our purchasing people to check if any clearance stock is still available through distributors.

      As for the other comment about Australian stock, we only buy though manufacturer approved Australian distributors.

  • thinggy on 05/03/2012 - 12:44

    Hello
    on the off chance that you do get more stock would it be put up for public sale again or would those that purchased and then received an email saying that you were out of stock be given the ability to purchase the item?

    Thanks

  • Moots on 05/03/2012 - 13:01
    -1

    Definetely wouldn't be purchasing from the company again. How simple is it to install a Stock Take system, If you only have 5 like explained after the 5 orders go through it should say Sold Out, Except you manually go through. Put sold out and you can STILL proceed with checkout and Payment Options.

    Long story short. Unless you were the first 5 orders (there was 30) you will not be getting one of these. Stupidity from a Computer Company that can't even get there website professionally done.

    • Computer Alliance on 05/03/2012 - 13:32
      +15

      There are reasons why we keep web sales separate from other sales, though I realise it is not ideal in these (very rare) situations where order may not be immediately processed and stock may run out.

      We process online orders manually by design so we can investigate and help correct the rather frequent mistakes or omissions we see in online ordering, and to investigate possible fraudulent transactions before they are processed. For the most part, customers are very happy with this system.

      For example, I personally processed a web order for a PC over the weekend. In that case the power supply was a little weak for the video card chosen, and cooling in the case was less than ideal. I rang the customer before processing, suggested some changes, had a chat about their use and they ended up with a PC several hundred $ less than that initial order and a configuration suited their purposes much better (turns out their didn’t need a high end games video card, the system was for video editing).

      I note our primary business is selling custom build PCs, and large volumes of PCs and other hardware to business clients, not $99 clearance switches.

      I do take your point about reducing stock levels on web orders automatically, and it is a process we will probably implement in the future (it alreday happens for the 90+% of other orders ie in shop, phone etc). I also apologise that we could not supply the stock you ordered in this rare case.

  • andrew229 on 05/03/2012 - 14:05
    +5

    i wasnt needing a new switch, but im impressed that computer alliance is taking the time to explain the situation.

  • Tenebrae on 05/03/2012 - 16:55
    +2

    I resisted the temptation to bite this one (try as I might, the house will never need a 48 port switch) but just wanted to lend my support to the rep who has gone the extra mile in explaining the situation to disappointed Ozbargainers.

    Kudos to you Computer Alliance, and thanks for the effort.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join