Switch with separate installation for SFP / SFP+

Hi!
Thank you for your feedback.

2 switches = Because at first glance it would be easier to only connect the two, rather than bringing the entire upper floor down to the ground floor.

Now to ask concretely:

Should I approach the connection of the two switches using SFP, or does that not bring me any practical advantages?
Distance between the devices, assuming a neat cable routing and not "the shortest way" certainly 15 m?
If I want to connect using SFP, what exactly do I need in terms of cables?

Thanks

If I am already building new and definitely want to set up switches in two locations, then today I would not connect them with only 1GBit. That is 100MB/s. That is already borderline for many application areas today. Whether I connect the two with RJ45 or SFP+ is actually irrelevant, but I would at least avoid 1GBit for such an important connection.

For all I care, 2x 1Gbit, depending on what switches you have, but you won’t need more bandwidth.

Well, I do understand enough about the topic to say that the idea of 2x1 Gbit doesn’t just work like that...

Buy 2 x 10G SFP+ SR Multimode modules at 25 euros each
Buy 1 x 15m LWL patch cable, Duplex OM4 Multimode at 20 euros each
Make sure that the modules have the same connectors as the cable, e.g. LC and Multimode or Single...

Then you have a 10G connection between both switches and can upgrade to 100G in 20 years with this cable as well.

By the way, the option with the 2 switches is not without reason. With floor distribution, you can easily unplug the connector between both floors and rent out upstairs in 20 years. Try doing that if your cabling always runs centrally somewhere – especially with Ethernet, which is the most important type of wiring for the future.

That's why I said, depending on which switches you use. I really don't understand why 1Gbit should be too little here. Maybe as a comparison (I work for a large IT service provider): We have customers (approx. 1500 employees) whose core switches internally only have a maximum of 10Gbit bandwidth. Yes, the hardware is old and occasionally there are performance issues. But the pain for the customer does not seem significant enough yet to justify a replacement. Only a small proportion of the 4000 servers in our data centers can even utilize 1Gbit. Most of our VMware ESXi servers are connected with 10Gbit (for the connection to the customer networks), this bandwidth is shared by 15-25 virtual machines, which are used simultaneously by several hundred users. And now someone really wants to tell me that in a single-family house, where most end devices only support 1Gbit but are probably only connected via WLAN, more than 1Gbit between two floors (!) is needed? How is that supposed to be possible? By the time that is the case, 10 years will have passed and the switches will be broken or outdated.

Most devices connected to the switches will never be able to fully utilize the 1GBit, that is clear.

And if you access it again via WLAN, of course that doesn’t help either (although WLAN now theoretically already exceeds 1GBit, so what will it be like in 10 years?)

But even in the home user sector, there are many use cases where 1GBit is annoyingly slow. Whether it’s simple file transfers, backup, or working with larger amounts of data over the network. At 100MB/s, it is often not particularly practical; at 500-600MB/s, it looks completely different.

And ultimately, the price difference described above does not even exist; with copper cables you are equipped for 10GBit anyway with Cat7 cables, and fiber optic sometimes even costs less. So why not just go for 10GBit right away?