Comparing SFP (not SFP+) to Cat 6 cables offers better performance and future-proofing.
Comparing SFP (not SFP+) to Cat 6 cables offers better performance and future-proofing.
I set up a compact network for a friend with roughly 20-22 devices and 13 Hikvision 4MP IP cameras. He already had networking equipment including a Cisco 24-port unmanaged Gigabit switch, a Hikvision 16-port unmanaged Gigabit switch, and a separate NVR. Both switches feature SFP ports. I wondered if linking both switches via SFP would offer benefits compared to using RJ45 cables. Since the distance is limited to about 3 meters, I expected potential bandwidth drops along the way.
I understand Eigenvector's perspective, but I thought it was good to include this extra point. Relying on an SFP port as an additional RJ45 connection can introduce another potential failure point (such as a faulty module). As long as you use reliable equipment, this shouldn't be a major concern. It's always wise to consider this in case you need to diagnose any connection problems with that interface.
Depends what you're doing, it will be synonymous in 99% of scenarios. Usually you gain some small EMI/Lightning benefit by not bridging devices together via a conductable medium. Also less chance for CRC and similar due to crappy or out-of-spec cabling, but otherwise it's all similar. If it's in a conduit or something I'd say you could SMF for future upgradeability, but in this use case it's really no different or benefit for going with anything but the cheapest/easiest option.