I’m looking to upgrade some of my internal systems to 10 gigabit, and seeing some patchy/conflicting/outdated info. Does anyone have any experience with local fiber? This would be entirely isolated to within my LAN, to enable faster access to my fileserver.
Current existing hardware:
- MikroTik CSS326-24G-2S+RM, featuring 2 SFP+ ports capable of 10GbE
- File server with a consumer-grade desktop PC motherboard. I have multiple options for this one going forward, but all will have at least 1 open PCIe x4+ slot
- This file server already has an LSI SAS x8 card connected to an external DAS
- Additional consumer-grade desktop PC, also featuring an open PCIe x4 slot.
- Physical access to run a fiber cable through the ceiling/walls
My primary goal is to have these connected as fast as possible to each other, while also allowing access to the rest of the LAN. I’m reluctant to use Cat6a (which is what these are currently using) due to reports of excessive heat and instability from the SFP+ modules.
As such, I’m willing to run some fiber cables. Here is my current plan, mostly sourced from FS:
- 2x Supermicro AOC-STGN-i2S / AOC-STGN-i1S (sourced from eBay)
- 2x Intel E10GSFPSR Compatible 10GBASE-SR SFP+ 850nm 300m DOM Duplex LC/UPC MMF Optical Transceiver Module (FS P/N: SFP-10GSR-85 for the NIC side)
- 2x Ubiquiti UF-MM-10G Compatible 10GBASE-SR SFP+ 850nm 300m DOM Duplex LC/UPC MMF Optical Transceiver Module (FS P/N: SFP-10GSR-85, for the switch side)
- 2x 15m (49ft) Fiber Patch Cable, LC UPC to LC UPC, Duplex, 2 Fibers, Multimode (OM4), Riser (OFNR), 2.0mm, Tight-Buffered, Aqua (FS P/N: OM4LCDX)
I know the cards are x8, but it seems that’s only needed to max out both ports. I will only be using one port on each card.
Are fiber keystone jacks/couplers (FS P/N: KJ-OM4LCDX) a bad idea?
Am I missing something completely? Are these even compatible with each other? I chose Ubiquti for the switch SFP+ since Mikrotik doesn’t vendor-lock, AFAICT.
Location: US
I think you’re right, as prosumer and low-end enterprise switch vendors have less of an incentive to bundle first-party xcvrs along with switch sales. However, the ISP and large-enteprise market segments still have vendor locks, although many have an “allow unsupported xcvr” mode which will apply best-effort to operate a third-party xcvr but the warranty won’t be honored while such a xcvr is installed.
The likes of Cisco and HPE do things like this, but given that the target customers of such switches are buying them in the hundreds to thousands, and each switch already costs thousands of dollars, the cost of first-party pluggables is just a part of the deal. Such customers also value reliability to a greater degree, so even a miniscule prospect of incompatibility will be avoided.
Insofar as it pertains to this community, the ability to enable the unsupported xcvr mode means old high-end equipment gets a second life in someone’s homelab, since warranties stop mattering there