[superkuh]

Watch out, I'm not sure about the SG108 but the SG108E has a known defect where it incorrectly broadcasts non-VLAN traffic across all ports, regardless of configured VLAN settings. https://community.tp-link.com/en/business/forum/topic/89181

I have confirmed this with my own version 1 SG108E (which additionally can't actually be managed without an ancient version of java and iptables /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward forwarding tricks. https://shred.zone/en/dev/setting-up-tp-link-tl-sg108e-with-...)

I'd say stay far away from this hardware line unless you actually do just want a dumb switch. If you do buy make sure you know exactly what hardware revision you're getting. I've heard the version 5 fixes it.

[toast0]

I had the 24 port version of these. They're fine for 'cooperative vlans' where you trust everything (enough), but want a little separation. But they're not sufficient if you don't trust the devices. You can't restrict management to specific vlans and iirc, there was a least one auth bypass.

At least for the version I had. I replaced it with some used smb stuff with a few 10g ports, cause unnecessary 10g is more fun.

[PhilipRoman]

>You can't restrict management to specific vlans

This bit me as well, FYI Zyxel switches seem to be among the few that do this properly, even on cheapest models. On the other hand their web interface cannot be used over SSH or other tunnels... The software side of network equipment is in a sad state, no wonder the hyperscalers moved to whitebox switches

[TacticalCoder]

> Watch out, I'm not sure about the SG108 but the SG108E has a known defect where it incorrectly broadcasts non-VLAN traffic across all ports, regardless of configured VLAN settings.

I've got the SG108, since so many years I forgot how many... It's a little workhorse. I'm pretty sure it's totally unmanaged. I've got both a 192.x.x.x and a 10.x.x.x LAN, on two different switches (one being the SG108) and I've got an actual bridge (and firewall) between the two. It's not a managed switch but a NUC doing the bridging between 192. and 10. I also have got a 3rd switch near the fiber termination (apartment is wired with ethernet in the walls).

I did that years ago: even though I've got a "guests" network, I still wanted my own machines to be on a totally separate LAN.

> I'd say stay far away from this hardware line unless you actually do just want a dumb switch.

Yeah exactly. I've got the SG108, because it's dumb. It's really fine. It never ever fails.

I'm using unmanaged switches at home because it's one less thing to configure/manage.

Now I only have about four desktop PCs (two being workstations used as headless servers), 4 NUCs, 3 laptops, and six Raspberry Pi. It's not a big network by any means.

A buddy of mine has got a 42U rack at home full of servers (and Mikrotik switches) and, well, that's another can of worms.