https://network-switch.com/pages/about-us
Read this firstly
If you're choosing between H3C S9850-32H and H3C S9855-48CD8D, don't start with "which is newer?"-start with what role the switch must play in your fabric.
- Pick S9850-32H when you need a clean, 32×100G-class building block for a 100G spine / aggregation or a compact high-speed layer (it's positioned with 32×40/100G QSFP28 and 6.4 Tbps class capacity).
- Pick S9855-48CD8D when you need a high-density 100G leaf with 400G uplinks, especially for AI / storage / high east-west traffic designs (it's positioned with 48×100G DSFP + 8×400G QSFP-DD and 16 Tbps class capacity).
- If you also want a "like-for-like" sanity check across brands, the closest equivalents typically map like this: 32×100G class: Huawei CE8850E-32CQ-EI, Cisco Nexus 9332C, Ruijie RG-S6510-32CQ100G dense leaf + 400G uplinks: Huawei CE8855H-32CQ8DQ, Cisco Nexus 93600CD-GX, Ruijie RG-S6580-48CQ8QC
Below is a practical, role-based comparison (with a cross-vendor table including model numbers), followed by a selection logic you can reuse for real projects.
Quick spec snapshot (with cross-brand comparable models)
| Brand | Model | Typical role in a spine-leaf DC fabric | Front-panel high-speed ports (headline) | Switching capacity / forwarding (as published) | Notes that matter in 2026 designs |
| H3C | S9850-32H | 100G spine / aggregation, or high-speed leaf in smaller pods | 32×40/100G QSFP28 | 6.4 Tbps, 2024 Mpps (catalog listing) | Focused 32×100G block; build symmetric 2-tier pods cleanly |
| H3C | S9855-48CD8D | Dense 100G leaf with 400G uplinks (AI/storage-ready patterns) | 48×100G DSFP + 8×400G QSFP-DD | 16 Tbps, 2680 Mpps (catalog listing) | Port mix is ideal for "100G servers now, 400G uplinks / future breakout" |
| Huawei | CloudEngine CE8850E-32CQ-EI | 32×100G class spine/leaf building block | 32×40/100G QSFP28 | 6.4 Tbps, 2300 Mpps | Explicit VXLAN/BGP-EVPN positioning on this class |
| Huawei | CloudEngine CE8855H-32CQ8DQ | 100G access with 400G uplinks | 32×40/100G QSFP28 + 8×400G QSFP-DD | (Capacity not shown in excerpted lines) | Strong "lossless + RoCEv2" messaging; 400G can split to 2×200 or 4×100 |
| Cisco | Nexus 9332C | 32×100G class spine | 32×40/100G QSFP28 (+ 2×1/10G) | 6.4 Tbps, 4.4 bpps | Breakout not supported on those 32 ports (relevant to cabling strategy) |
| Cisco | Nexus 93600CD-GX | 100G + 400G mixed spine/leaf | 28×100/40G QSFP28 + 8×400/100G QSFP-DD | 12 Tbps, 4.0 bpps | Cisco positions it for both spine and leaf; breakout and multiple speeds are central |
| Ruijie | RG-S6510-32CQ | 32×100G class DC access/leaf | 32×100G QSFP28 | 6.4 Tbps, 2030 Mpps | EVPN/VXLAN + RDMA lossless messaging in this family |
| Ruijie | RG-S6580-48CQ8QC | Dense 100G leaf with 400G uplinks | 48×100G DSFP + 8×400G QSFP-DD | 16 Tbps, 5350 Mpps | Explicit PFC/ECN + RDMA positioning; also mentions gRPC |
What this table should tell you quickly:
- S9850-32H lives in the same "32×100G / ~6.4T" universe as CE8850E-32CQ-EI, Nexus 9332C, RG-S6510-32CQ.
- S9855-48CD8D lines up most cleanly (port-for-port) with RG-S6580-48CQ8QC and conceptually with the "100G + 400G uplink" class like CE8855H-32CQ8DQ and Nexus 93600CD-GX.
The role-based selection logic
Step A - Decide your fabric math (ports-first, then features)
Ask these four questions:
1. Are my server-facing links mostly 100G today?
- If yes, both models can be relevant, but the density differs dramatically
2. Do I need 400G uplinks now (or within 12-24 months)?
- If yes, S9855-48CD8D is naturally aligned because it includes 8×400G QSFP-DD in the platform port mix.
3. Is this an AI / HPC / distributed storage network where lossless behavior matters?
- Many modern designs emphasize congestion control and predictable latency. Huawei's CE8855H datasheet, for example, explicitly positions features around RoCEv2-style lossless behaviors (PFC deadlock prevention, ECN enhancements, etc.).
- Ruijie similarly calls out PFC/ECN and RDMA network building in its RG-S6580 family.
- So for the "AI-ready leaf" intent, S9855-48CD8D is the more natural H3C choice.
4. Am I building a clean 100G spine layer (simple, symmetric, repeatable pods)?
- A "32×100G class" switch is often a sweet spot for spines in smaller-to-mid pods. That's exactly where S9850-32H lands by port count and class.
Step B - Match the switch to the role (not the marketing name)
A practical mapping:
- S9850-32H → best thought of as a high-speed 100G building block (spine/aggregation in many deployments; can be leaf in smaller pods).
- S9855-48CD8D → best thought of as a dense leaf that keeps 100G access plentiful while giving you 400G uplink headroom.
H3C S9850-32H - where it wins?
What it is?
A 32×40/100G QSFP28 switch positioned in the 6.4 Tbps class, which makes it a clean "fabric brick" for 100G designs.
When S9850-32H is the better answer
You should lean S9850-32H when:
- You're building a classic 100G spine-leaf where spines are 32-port 100G units and you want predictable oversubscription math.
- Your fabric design values symmetry and repeatability more than port diversity.
- Your "next upgrade" is more likely more pods than higher uplink speed.
Watch-outs
- If you already know you'll need 400G uplinks to avoid spine bottlenecks, starting with a pure 32×100G block may push you into earlier refresh cycles.
- If your leaf layer needs a lot of server-facing 100G ports, 32 ports can force more leaf devices than you intended (more racks, more optics, more cabling, more complexity).
Cross-brand sanity check
If a stakeholder asks "is this a normal spec for the market?" your comparison anchors are:
- Huawei CE8850E-32CQ-EI: same 32×40/100G QSFP28 framing and published 6.4 Tbps class capacity.
- Cisco Nexus 9332C: also a 32×40/100G QSFP28 spine with 6.4 Tbps, but note Cisco explicitly states breakout cables are not supported on those 32 ports-this impacts how you plan fanout and cabling.
- Ruijie RG-S6510-32CQ: published as 32×100G QSFP28, 6.4 Tbps class.
This is why the S9850-32H argument is usually: simple 100G fabric, clean math, predictable cost per 100G port.
H3C S9855-48CD8D - why it's the "2026 leaf" shape?
What it is?
A high-density platform with 48×100G DSFP for server/storage access plus 8×400G QSFP-DD for uplinks, published in the 16 Tbps class.
Why this port mix matters more than it looks?
In 2026-era refresh cycles, many teams sit in this awkward middle:
- Servers/storage nodes are still heavily 100G,
- but uplink pressure and east-west traffic are forcing 400G sooner than expected (AI training, distributed storage rebuilds, microservice chatter, telemetry-heavy operations).
A switch that combines lots of 100G downlinks with built-in 400G uplinks lets you:
- Keep server access stable (no forced server NIC change),
- Upgrade the fabric core/uplink bandwidth earlier,
- Avoid "leaf is the bottleneck" during cluster expansion.
When S9855-48CD8D is the better answer?
Choose it when:
- You need many 100G endpoints per rack/pod (dense ToR/EoR patterns),
- You want to run 400G uplinks now or stage them as a near-term option,
- You're building for AI/HPC/storage traffic patterns where congestion management and predictability become first-class design goals (even if you start on standard Ethernet).
Cross-brand equivalents that strengthen the business case
- Ruijie RG-S6580-48CQ8QC is the closest "apples-to-apples" port configuration: 48×100G DSFP + 8×400G QSFP-DD, published 16.0 Tbps class.
- Huawei CE8855H-32CQ8DQ is a "same idea, different downlink density" competitor: 32×40/100G QSFP28 + 8×400G QSFP-DD, with explicit notes that 400G ports can split to 2×200G or 4×100G for migration flexibility.
- Cisco Nexus 93600CD-GX is the classic Cisco reference point for mixed 100G/400G: 28×100/40G QSFP28 + 8×400/100G QSFP-DD, published at 12 Tbps class.
So the S9855-48CD8D narrative is usually: more usable 100G ports per RU + real 400G uplink headroom without redesigning everything.
Which one fits my data center role?
Scenario 1 - You're building a clean 100G spine for a smaller/mid pod
Recommended: S9850-32H
Because you can build a tidy pod design around a 32×100G spine pattern, and the market equivalents validate that this is a standard class (Huawei CE8850E-32CQ-EI, Cisco 9332C, Ruijie RG-S6510-32CQ).
Scenario 2 - Your leaf layer must absorb lots of 100G endpoints (and you hate cable sprawl)
Recommended: S9855-48CD8D
Because 48×100G downlinks simply reduces the number of leaf switches you need, and the 400G uplinks reduce your "future refactor" risk.
Scenario 3 - AI training / HPC / storage cluster where you expect sustained east-west traffic
Recommended: S9855-48CD8D first, then validate uplink strategy (400G now vs staged)
Because this is exactly the class where vendors emphasize "lossless-ish" designs and congestion handling for modern workloads (see Huawei CE8855H lossless/RoCEv2 positioning and Ruijie PFC/ECN + RDMA positioning).
Scenario 4 - You need cross-vendor options
Use the table in Section 1 to build a shortlist:
- 32×100G class shortlist: S9850-32H / CE8850E-32CQ-EI / Nexus 9332C / RG-S6510-32CQ
- 100G + 400G uplink shortlist: S9855-48CD8D / CE8855H-32CQ8DQ / Nexus 93600CD-GX / RG-S6580-48CQ8QC
The "hidden" differentiators people forget (but cost your money later)
A) Breakout and cabling strategy
- If your plan depends on breaking high-speed ports into multiple lower-speed links, verify breakout support at the exact model/port level. Cisco's Nexus 9332C explicitly states breakout cables are not supported, which can change your fanout plan.
- For 400G migration, Huawei explicitly calls out that a 400G QSFP-DD can split into 2×200G or 4×100G on CE8855H-this kind of detail matters for staged upgrades.
B) Buffering and microbursts
Traffic in AI/storage fabrics often comes in bursts. Ruijie's RG-S6510 family discusses buffer scheduling and burst handling, and Cisco publishes buffer values for some platforms (e.g., 40MB on 9332C).
Even if you don't run "true lossless," buffering + congestion signaling is a practical stability lever.
C) Tooling ecosystem (automation, telemetry, operations)
Modern DC operations are increasingly automated. Cisco's GX series positioning includes ACI or NX-OS operational modes and emphasizes multiple speeds/breakouts as core capability.
If you already live in a specific ecosystem, your OPEX can outweigh the pure hardware delta.
FAQs
Q1: What's the fastest way to decide between S9850-32H and S9855-48CD8D without getting lost in specs?
A: Decide based on role and growth pressure. If you need dense 100G leaf access plus a clear 400G uplink path, you'll usually lean toward the S9855-48CD8D class. If you're building a clean 32×100G building block for spine/aggregation or smaller pods, S9850-32H class tends to fit better.
Q2: In 2026 spine-leaf fabrics, where does 400G matter more than "more 100G ports"?
A: 400G matters most where bandwidth is shared-typically leaf-to-spine uplinks and inter-pod links. If your bottleneck is systemic (many racks experience slowdowns at peak), uplink speed/headroom often beats adding more downlink ports.
Q3: Should I deploy 400G (or 800G planning) at the leaf first or at the spine first?
A: In most real-world upgrades, it's smarter to uplift the shared fabric tier first (spine and uplinks) because it removes broad bottlenecks with minimal disruption. Leaf upgrades are best staged by hot racks / high-growth pods.
Q4: How do I know if I'm actually uplink-congested or just seeing "random slowness"?
A: Look for repeatable patterns: tail latency spikes during specific windows, the same uplinks trending high utilization, and drops/errors that correlate with slow application behavior. If you can't see queue/drops/flow distribution clearly, the "randomness" is often just lack of observability.
Q5: What's the biggest 2026 mistake when planning optics for high-speed leaf switches?
A: Treating optics as a late procurement step. You should lock distance tiers, module types, breakout policy, and spares strategy early, because optics and cabling frequently drive both budget variance and delivery risk.
Q6: DSFP vs QSFP28 vs QSFP-DD-what should procurement actually care about?
A: Procurement should care about ecosystem maturity, density, and BOM complexity. Different form factors change module availability, breakout options, cabling density, spares stocking, and troubleshooting workflow-even if the line rate is the same.
Q7: For mixed 100G and 400G designs, how do I avoid port waste and messy breakout decisions?
A: Standardize a pod template: define where breakout is allowed, where it is forbidden, and how growth stages will consume ports. Most waste happens when breakout choices are made ad hoc per rack under time pressure.
Q8: If I'm running AI training or storage-heavy east-west traffic, what switch capabilities should I verify first?
A: Verify congestion behavior and observability first-then consider lossless features. In practice, "AI-ready" depends on whether you can identify congestion hotspots quickly, keep latency stable under load, and operate changes safely.
Q9: Is "lossless Ethernet" always required for AI or RDMA (RoCE) in 2026?
A: Not always, but you must be deliberate. Lossless features can help certain workloads, but they can also introduce operational risk if configured poorly-so validate with a controlled test plan and ensure you can monitor congestion signals reliably.
Q10: What metrics should I baseline on day one for a new leaf deployment?
A: Baseline utilization distribution per uplink, drops/errors, link flap history, and any available latency/congestion indicators. Most long-term stability comes from being able to compare today's behavior against a known "healthy baseline."
Q11: When should I add more spines vs upgrading uplink speed?
A: Add spines when you need more parallel paths and radix (scale-out). Upgrade uplink speed when the topology is sound but you're hitting a bandwidth ceiling. Many 2026 expansions do both over time-first uplift shared uplinks, then add spines as the pod grows.
Q12: How do I compare Huawei/Cisco/Ruijie equivalents fairly without turning it into a brand war?
A: Compare by role fit + port mix + operational model + BOM complexity, not by a single spec. "Equivalent" means similar intent (e.g., 32×100G class spine brick vs dense 100G leaf with 400G uplinks), not identical feature licensing or management ecosystem.
Q13: Why do two switches with similar port counts perform differently under stress?
A: Differences often come from buffering/queue behavior, congestion handling, telemetry granularity, and software upgrade stability. Under real traffic (microbursts, elephant flows), these factors can dominate user experience more than raw throughput numbers.
Q14: What's the most cost-effective migration path if I have lots of 25G/10G today but want 100G soon?
A: Use a staged plan: keep the access layer stable where possible, upgrade shared bottlenecks first, and shift hot racks to 100G incrementally. The key is avoiding two purchases for the same role by aligning your breakout and uplink strategy with your 12-24 month growth plan.
Q15: What should my spares strategy look like for a leaf layer in 2026?
A: Treat spares as part of the pod template: power supplies, fans, and a small set of standardized optics/cables for the most common distance tiers. The goal is to restore service quickly without hunting for rare parts or unique modules per rack.
Q16: How should I structure an RFQ so quotes across brands are actually comparable?
A: Provide a consistent input set: rack count, server NIC mix, target uplink speed timeline, distance tiers, redundancy goals, and required features (overlay, automation, telemetry, QoS/DCB if applicable). Without this, quotes may be "cheap" because they exclude optics, breakout, spares, or the operational requirements you actually need.
Q17: If I'm worried about delivery timelines, what's the most practical way to de-risk the project?
A: Lock your BOM early and keep it standardized-especially optics and cables. A well-defined, repeatable pod template reduces substitution risk and makes it easier to source from authorized channels without last-minute reengineering.
Closing: the practical answer
- S9850-32H is your "clean 100G fabric brick" choice.
- S9855-48CD8D is your "dense 100G leaf with 400G headroom" choice, and it maps well to the market's 2026 high-density leaf shape.
Did this article help you or not? Tell us on Facebook and LinkedIn . We’d love to hear from you!
