Gigabit switch supporting WOL

Discussion in 'Asus' started by oparr@hotmail.com, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. Guest

    Looking for a cheap (less than $35.00) switch from Asus, D-LINK, TP-
    LINK etc. that doesn't interfere with wake on LAN. Four or five ports
    is sufficient. Any recommendations?

    I gather these new cheap switches feature green ethernet technology
    that may prevent WOL from working. Here's a quote from a Newegg D-LINK
    review:

    "If your computer becomes idle it automatically deactivates the link
    from the switch and if you use your Wake on LAN function it will not
    be able to reach your computer."

    Looks like some products these days may be getting too smart for their
    own good.
     
    , Jan 8, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Per :
    > that doesn't interfere with wake on LAN


    Could somebody dumb that down for me?

    I've been pursuing WOL for awhile now and just the other day
    somebody said something like "Why worry about a router that
    broadcasts magic packets: just connect the devices to the same
    switch and it will work."

    Needless-to-say, it did not work - and it's sounding to me the
    magic packet do-or-don't-do thing extends to switches.

    ?

    (FWIW: NetGear GS108 gigabit switch).

    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 8, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Jan 8, 9:55 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote:
    >Could somebody dumb that down for me?


    Been using WOL for over 13 years. Asus and other MB makers, NIC
    makers, Windows etc. have been supporting it just fine. The last thing
    one would expect to get in the way is a hub (obsolete) or switch. I'm
    speculating here but based on that review, it seems that these cheap
    switches nowadays, all boasting green ethernet technology, are using
    the same or similar ethernet chips that shutdown the port (until the
    NIC wakes) when they detect that the NIC is in a standby state
    (that'll probably save you a whopping fifty cents a year). Hoping that
    this isn't the case and I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill.

    > (FWIW: NetGear GS108 gigabit switch).


    I've had a GS108T for the last four years and know that older switches
    work just fine with WOL. However, I need at least three more switches
    to finish upgrading this place to gigabit ethernet. Please, don't even
    mention 802.11n WLAN, been there done that.
     
    , Jan 8, 2011
    #3
  4. Per :
    >> (FWIW: NetGear GS108 gigabit switch).

    >
    >I've had a GS108T for the last four years and know that older switches
    >work just fine with WOL.


    Can you comment on the prospect of getting WOL to work without a
    WOL-broadcast-enabled router by connecting the sender of the
    magic packet and the device tb awakened to the same GS108 switch?

    Or is maybe the "T" suffix critical?
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 8, 2011
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Jan 8, 1:28 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote:
    > Can you comment on the prospect of getting WOL to work without a
    > WOL-broadcast-enabled router by connecting the sender of the
    > magic packet and the device tb awakened to the same GS108 switch?


    All you need is the MAC address of the sleeping computer and run a
    program on the waking computer using that address. You can download
    such a program here if you're using Windows;

    http://www.gammadyne.com/cmdline.htm#wol

    Provided both computers are connected to the switch then the router
    and its features are irrelevant. Normally, the switch and its features
    would be irrelevant too, hence my concern with these new cheap routers
    boasting green ethernet technology.
     
    , Jan 8, 2011
    #5
  6. Guest

    On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, "" <> wrote:
    > hence my concern with these new cheap routers
    > boasting green ethernet technology.


    Should have been cheap switches instead of cheap routers.
     
    , Jan 8, 2011
    #6
  7. DevilsPGD Guest

    In message
    <>
    "" <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >On Jan 8, 9:55 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote:
    >>Could somebody dumb that down for me?

    >
    >Been using WOL for over 13 years. Asus and other MB makers, NIC
    >makers, Windows etc. have been supporting it just fine. The last thing
    >one would expect to get in the way is a hub (obsolete) or switch. I'm
    >speculating here but based on that review, it seems that these cheap
    >switches nowadays, all boasting green ethernet technology, are using
    >the same or similar ethernet chips that shutdown the port (until the
    >NIC wakes) when they detect that the NIC is in a standby state
    >(that'll probably save you a whopping fifty cents a year). Hoping that
    >this isn't the case and I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill.


    For WoL to work the NIC can't go into standby state, it needs to
    maintain a link (although often a 10Mb/s half-duplex link instead of
    it's full speed) so switches shouldn't be turning their port off either.
     
    DevilsPGD, Jan 9, 2011
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Jan 8, 7:59 pm, DevilsPGD <>
    wrote:
    > In message
    >
    > For WoL to work the NIC can't go into standby state


    That's like saying that the power supply cannot go into a standby
    state because its standby voltage caters to memory and other devices
    like the NIC when the computer is in a S3 standby state.

    > it needs to
    > maintain a link (although often a 10Mb/s half-duplex link instead of
    > it's full speed) so switches shouldn't be turning their port off either.


    Agreed. The reviewer in my OP is quoting a D-LINK support person who
    told him that the switch in question does not support WOL. I need that
    clarified before purchasing one of these switches since it's not clear
    as to what exactly green ethernet implies. I've also written to the
    manufacturer.
     
    , Jan 9, 2011
    #8
  9. DevilsPGD Guest

    In message
    <>
    "" <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >On Jan 8, 7:59 pm, DevilsPGD <>
    >wrote:
    >> In message
    >>
    >> For WoL to work the NIC can't go into standby state

    >
    >That's like saying that the power supply cannot go into a standby
    >state because its standby voltage caters to memory and other devices
    >like the NIC when the computer is in a S3 standby state.


    I'm consider these to be quite different examples of powering down.

    Power supplies mostly power down though, leaving only one voltage on one
    rail online, and cannot supply sufficient power to run the system when
    the power supply is in a standby state.

    WoL NICs stay online and linked to the network in a state that, in many
    environments, is fully functional.
     
    DevilsPGD, Jan 9, 2011
    #9
  10. Guest

    On Jan 8, 9:42 pm, DevilsPGD <>
    wrote:
    >
    > WoL NICs stay online and linked to the network in a state that, in many
    > environments, is fully functional.


    Googled this ("wake on lan" "green technology")..."I wish I could find
    an inexpensive gigabit switch that doesn't have this stupid "green
    technology" that shuts off ports that aren't in-use and breaks Wake-on-
    LAN.". It's the functionality of the switch, not the NIC, that I'm
    worried about.
     
    , Jan 9, 2011
    #10
  11. Rob Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Looking for a cheap (less than $35.00) switch from Asus, D-LINK, TP-
    > LINK etc. that doesn't interfere with wake on LAN. Four or five
    > ports
    > is sufficient. Any recommendations?
    >
    > I gather these new cheap switches feature green ethernet technology
    > that may prevent WOL from working. Here's a quote from a Newegg
    > D-LINK
    > review:
    >
    > "If your computer becomes idle it automatically deactivates the link
    > from the switch and if you use your Wake on LAN function it will not
    > be able to reach your computer."
    >
    > Looks like some products these days may be getting too smart for
    > their
    > own good.


    I use a Xyzel GS108B (8-port) gigabit switch and use WOL without
    issue,
    so would assume the 5-port version will be ok (and within your
    budget.)
    HTH,
    --
    Rob
     
    Rob, Jan 10, 2011
    #11
  12. Paul Guest

    Rob wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Looking for a cheap (less than $35.00) switch from Asus, D-LINK, TP-
    >> LINK etc. that doesn't interfere with wake on LAN. Four or five
    >> ports
    >> is sufficient. Any recommendations?
    >>
    >> I gather these new cheap switches feature green ethernet technology
    >> that may prevent WOL from working. Here's a quote from a Newegg
    >> D-LINK
    >> review:
    >>
    >> "If your computer becomes idle it automatically deactivates the link
    >> from the switch and if you use your Wake on LAN function it will not
    >> be able to reach your computer."
    >>
    >> Looks like some products these days may be getting too smart for
    >> their
    >> own good.

    >
    > I use a Xyzel GS108B (8-port) gigabit switch and use WOL without
    > issue,
    > so would assume the 5-port version will be ok (and within your
    > budget.)
    > HTH,


    The GS108B is only $35 (sale priced). You can afford to splurge.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833181098

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jan 10, 2011
    #12
  13. Guest

    On Jan 10, 11:24 am, Paul <> wrote:
    > > I use a Xyzel GS108B (8-port) gigabit switch and use WOL without
    > > issue,
    > > so would assume the 5-port version will be ok (and within your
    > > budget.)
    > > HTH,

    >
    > The GS108B is only $35 (sale priced). You can afford to splurge.
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833181098
    >


    Thanks guys. I went to the local computer shop and got a Netgear GS105
    yesterday (before seeing your posts). So far so good.
     
    , Jan 12, 2011
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    628
  2. Cyrius7

    To gigabit or not to gigabit.

    Cyrius7, Feb 12, 2005, in forum: Intel
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    374
    David Schwartz
    Feb 15, 2005
  3. Andrew Tyson
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    349
    Rick Jones
    Dec 16, 2004
  4. Leewa
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    Leewa
    Jun 30, 2005
  5. Guest
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    391
    Columbotrek
    Oct 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page