Member Avatar for Moe

hello
I have found that the advantages and dis of star topology are as follows.
Advantages of a Star Topology
• Easy to install and wire.
• No disruptions to the network when connecting or removing devices.
• Easy to detect faults and to remove parts.
Disadvantages of a Star Topology
• Requires more cable length than a linear topology.
• If the hub or concentrator fails, nodes attached are disabled.
• More expensive than linear bus topologies because of the cost of the concentrators.


And advantages and disadvantages of mesh topology are as follows.
Advantages
Provides redundant paths between devices
The network can be expanded without disruption to current users.

Disadvantages
Requires more cable than the other LAN topologies.
Complicated implementation

If so, what will be the advantage and disadvantage of star topology if it is compared to mesh topology?

  • 3 Contributors
  • 2 Replies
  • 338 Views
  • 3 Weeks Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by PaulG103

Dani AI

Generated

Good start, . The practical difference to keep in mind is where you put responsibility: a star concentrates every edge link into a central device, which simplifies addressing and management; a mesh spreads connectivity so traffic can take alternate paths when something fails. is right that a hybrid approach is the usual real-world choice, and is correct that full mesh is more common at WAN or backbone layers than on a typical office desktop LAN.

A useful planning metric: a full mesh among n devices requires n(n-1)/2 physical links (so 5 devices = 10 links, 10 devices = 45 links). That quadratic growth quickly makes full-mesh expensive and hard to manage, so most designs use partial mesh only between critical core/aggregation devices. The real costs are ports, switch/router forwarding capacity, and operational complexity — not just "cable."

Practical deployment notes: for small sites a single managed access switch (star) keeps operations simple; harden that design with stackable switches, dual uplinks (LACP), redundant power, and gateway failover (VRRP/HSRP) to avoid single points of failure. For larger networks put the edge in star layout but make the aggregation/core a partial mesh and use routing protocols (OSPF/BGP) to handle path selection. Instrument the network (SNMP/flow telemetry), document physical cabling, and test failover procedures.

Decision checklist: pick star when simplicity, low cost, and easy management matter; pick partial/full mesh where uptime and alternate paths are required; choose hybrid (star at the edge, mesh in the core) for most campus/data‑center/WAN designs. Base the choice on node count, required availability (SLA), traffic patterns, and how much operational complexity the team can maintain.

Member Avatar for xfranco

Moe, you have answered your own quesiton already:

Star topologies are easier to setup, requires less cable and is easily upgradable.
In the same breath, you will not have the redundancies that a Mesh topology have to offer.

Why waste time choosing one or the other when you can implement a hybrid topology using a combination of (Star and Mesh)? Yes, it is slightly more complicated, but it allows you have the advantages of both topologies.

Member Avatar for PaulG103

I would say that a mesh topology is better suited for an WAN or similar environment.
It would not have any benefit to office desktop use.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.