OT. How to set up a home computer network?

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Donwill

unread,
May 30, 2010, 5:33:46 AM5/30/10
to
I have a laptop which is full or so the message it displays tells me.
I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
days but how do I go about it.?
Don

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 30, 2010, 5:38:51 AM5/30/10
to
In article <86epnq...@mid.individual.net>,

Windose help will tell you how to set up a home network.

--
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

NT

unread,
May 30, 2010, 6:11:46 AM5/30/10
to

Tinkerer

unread,
May 30, 2010, 6:31:32 AM5/30/10
to

"Donwill" <Donwill...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:86epnq...@mid.individual.net...

You obviously have an internet connection. Presumably you have a router.
External drives can be bought that have a network connection and could plug
straight into your router and be accessible to all the computers using said
router. Here is a link to one from PC World although I am sure you can get
them cheaper.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/395ml5n
I have an old PC that I use for messing about with Linux with a removable
slave hard drive (it's in a drawer like caddy) and all our computers back up
to that. The hard drive can then be removed from the machine for storage
elsewhere.
--
Tinkerer


F

unread,
May 30, 2010, 6:44:29 AM5/30/10
to
On 30/05/2010 11:11 NT wrote:

> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Networking

Plenty of information there, but no mention of homeplugs. Useful if you
don't want to install Ethernet cabling or use wireless: just buy one for
each computer you want to network and plug them into a mains socket near
to the computer they are to connect. An Ethernet cable (supplied)
connects the homeplug to the computer and the data travels across your
house wiring.

Add an NAS device to the network with a homeplug and you can store
backups and/or data anywhere in the house. Choose an 'unusual' location
and a thief is unlikely to find it even if they find your computer(s):
you can replace a stolen computer but not your data.

--
F


Steve Firth

unread,
May 30, 2010, 7:04:37 AM5/30/10
to
F <news@nowhere> wrote:

> Add an NAS device to the network with a homeplug and

... it will take hours to transfer files of non-trivial size.

Steve Firth

unread,
May 30, 2010, 7:04:37 AM5/30/10
to
Donwill <Donwill...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
> would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
> if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
> inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
> days but how do I go about it.?

Well... a very good way to do it is to build your own NAS. Recipes vary
for homebrew equipment of this nature, but mine was as follows:

PC case and power supply: Free (had one spare, huge choice available
free via Freecycle or at a local recycling site).

Motherboard with Gigabit LAN and SATA: Had to pay for one, got an Asus
model that cost me �50. Gigabit LAN is essential, the speed hit from
100Mb/s is painful.

Processor: Had several around used an AMD Turion because it's 64 bit and
low power. YMMV a lot.

Memory: Had 4GB going spare.

Drives: Had around 4TB of drives kicking around from other projects and
a further 4TB of USB/Firewire drives. YMMV again, but internal SATA
drives cost just a few quid.

CD-ROM: Only needed during installation, had a spare IDE model.

Plumb up the whole mess. Temporarily attach monitor and keyboard.
Install Ubuntu, use Desktop if you want a pretty interface, but really
Server is all you need. Format all the drives. Load up Samba. Set up
Samba.

Errm that's it. Terabytes of on-line storage accessible at 70MB/s for a
fraction of the cost of any NAS or indeed many external USB drives of
similar capacity. The home-brewed NAS is about 2x faster than USB2
drives. Copying a 5GB file can be done in 70 seconds.

F

unread,
May 30, 2010, 8:00:33 AM5/30/10
to

I don't know what you mean by 'non-trivial', but I'm running an NAS on a
homeplug network here and the number of times it takes 'hours' to
transfer a file is not very often. And when it does, so what? It's all
going on in the background.

Just an easier alternative to installing Ethernet wiring, runs faster
than wireless and not mentioned in the Wiki.

--
F


Donwill

unread,
May 30, 2010, 8:24:06 AM5/30/10
to
Very useful to a non expert like me :-( , however I wondered whether the
info is up to date I don't know when it was last reviewed and things
change so fast in the electronic/computing world.
Thanks
Don

Donwill

unread,
May 30, 2010, 8:39:43 AM5/30/10
to
On 30/05/2010 11:31, Tinkerer wrote:
> "Donwill"<Donwill...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:86epnq...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I have a laptop which is full or so the message it displays tells me.
>> I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
>> would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
>> if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
>> inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
>> days but how do I go about it.?
>>
> You obviously have an internet connection. Presumably you have a router.
Yes a Siemens SE587. There are four yellow sockets in the back only one
of which is connected to the LAN socket on my laptop.What would the
others be used for?

>
> External drives can be bought that have a network connection and could plug
> straight into your router and be accessible to all the computers using said
> router. Here is a link to one from PC World although I am sure you can get
> them cheaper.
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/395ml5n
>
That's useful to know.

> I have an old PC that I use for messing about with Linux with a removable
> slave hard drive (it's in a drawer like caddy) and all our computers back up
> to that. The hard drive can then be removed from the machine for storage
> elsewhere.
>
I don't think the old brain could cope with home brew, I assembled a few
computers in Windows 95/98 days but things have moved on at such a rate,
more new data for a brain that's has a reducing memory storage. :-(
Thanks
Don

Donwill

unread,
May 30, 2010, 8:50:01 AM5/30/10
to
I couldn't contemplate that I'm afraid, it will have to be a purchase.

Is CAT 5 cable still the best one to distribute the signal round the house?

Cheers
Don

tony sayer

unread,
May 30, 2010, 8:41:25 AM5/30/10
to
In article <3NydnbKhGJQkzp_R...@brightview.co.uk>, F
<news@nowhere.?> scribeth thus

And causes a lot of HF radio interference;(...
--
Tony Sayer

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 30, 2010, 9:16:47 AM5/30/10
to

That looks to be mostly correct but there are some changes that I would
want to make. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way for me to
create an account so that I can log in and edit.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 30, 2010, 9:28:05 AM5/30/10
to
On 30/05/10 13:50, Donwill wrote:

>> Errm that's it. Terabytes of on-line storage accessible at 70MB/s for a
>> fraction of the cost of any NAS or indeed many external USB drives of
>> similar capacity. The home-brewed NAS is about 2x faster than USB2
>> drives. Copying a 5GB file can be done in 70 seconds.
> I couldn't contemplate that I'm afraid, it will have to be a purchase.

You can do it in baby steps if you want to. If you have an old PC you
can re-use it as a network server reasonably easily. If not then you
would be best advised to start by buying a NAS (Network Attached
Storage) device.

>
> Is CAT 5 cable still the best one to distribute the signal round the house?

Yes. There is a Cat 6 but it's overkill for domestic purposes. The
current standard is Cat 5e which will be sufficient for Gigabit
networking. If you do install Ethernet cabling then I strongly advise
you to work to a standard that will enable you to switch to Gigabit
networking even if you only use 100Mb technology at first.

I recommend that you subscribe to the uk.comp.home-networking newsgroup.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

NT

unread,
May 30, 2010, 9:41:12 AM5/30/10
to

We had spam hell so signup is now requierd. Click index, account
requests, and post there


NT

NT

unread,
May 30, 2010, 9:43:19 AM5/30/10
to

Click 'history' at the top of the page to see. The article's currrent.


NT

NT

unread,
May 30, 2010, 9:47:17 AM5/30/10
to

cat 5e


NT

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 30, 2010, 9:51:52 AM5/30/10
to

Done


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

Donwill

unread,
May 30, 2010, 10:09:40 AM5/30/10
to
Is there a maximum length of Cat5e over which Gigabit networking speed
degrades,? I suppose my max length will be approx 30 Metres.

>
> I recommend that you subscribe to the uk.comp.home-networking newsgroup.
Thanks , have just done that.

Cheers
Don
>
>

Dave Liquorice

unread,
May 30, 2010, 10:02:41 AM5/30/10
to
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:50:01 +0100, Donwill wrote:

> Is CAT 5 cable still the best one to distribute the signal round the
> house?

Wired is still the best, faster, more reliable and secure. These days
I'd put in Cat6 cable or Cat5e rather than Cat5. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

Steve Firth

unread,
May 30, 2010, 10:36:28 AM5/30/10
to
Donwill <Donwill...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Is there a maximum length of Cat5e over which Gigabit networking speed
> degrades,? I suppose my max length will be approx 30 Metres.

It's around 300 metres for Cat5e.

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 30, 2010, 10:51:02 AM5/30/10
to

I'm replying to your initial post in uk.d-i-y and crossposting to
uk.comp.home-networking to bring them into the conversation.

We have already discussed some of the obvious alternatives, using
wireless and mains networking. We have established that cat 5e or cat 6
are the options for cabled Ethernet.

There have been suggestions about building a file-storage system (NAS)
using a spare PC but as I understand it you don't think this is a viable
option for you. That leaves the option of buying a NAS device or
something similar.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

Donwill

unread,
May 30, 2010, 11:09:52 AM5/30/10
to
On 30/05/2010 15:51, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 30/05/10 10:33, Donwill wrote:
>> I have a laptop which is full or so the message it displays tells me.
>> I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
>> would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
>> if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
>> inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
>> days but how do I go about it.?
>
> I'm replying to your initial post in uk.d-i-y and crossposting to
> uk.comp.home-networking to bring them into the conversation.
Yes, good idea, Thanks.

>
> We have already discussed some of the obvious alternatives, using
> wireless and mains networking. We have established that cat 5e or cat
> 6 are the options for cabled Ethernet.
On looking at the price of 30Meters of Cat5e and Cat6 there was only
approx �3 or �4 difference, on that basis and for future proofing it
seems wise to go for
Cat6 .

>
> There have been suggestions about building a file-storage system (NAS)
> using a spare PC but as I understand it you don't think this is a
> viable option for you. That leaves the option of buying a NAS device
> or something similar.
Yes maybe someone can discuss/advise?

>
>
In the back of my router (Siemens SE587) there are four LAN sockets
(would they be called RJ45?) only one is used and is connected to my lap
top. What purpose could the the other three sockets be put to.?

Cheers
Don

Message has been deleted

John Rumm

unread,
May 30, 2010, 11:32:52 AM5/30/10
to

I tried to create the account for you - but you already exist it seems!
So either you did one in the past, or NT beat me to it and created it an
hour ago!

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Adrian C

unread,
May 30, 2010, 11:35:53 AM5/30/10
to

100 metres.

--
Adrian C

John Rumm

unread,
May 30, 2010, 12:21:01 PM5/30/10
to
On 30/05/2010 16:09, Donwill wrote:

> On looking at the price of 30Meters of Cat5e and Cat6 there was only
> approx �3 or �4 difference, on that basis and for future proofing it
> seems wise to go for
> Cat6 .

You can, although the cost starts to rise a bit if you are lots of it, like:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Structured_wiring_system

>> There have been suggestions about building a file-storage system (NAS)
>> using a spare PC but as I understand it you don't think this is a
>> viable option for you. That leaves the option of buying a NAS device
>> or something similar.

Building is fine, although one thing to watch is power consumption.
These things tend to be on 24/7 and the dedicated NAS boxes are often
very low power in comparison to a recycled PC solution.

> Yes maybe someone can discuss/advise?

Synology do some very nice NAS boxes, but there are plenty of others to
choose from.

> In the back of my router (Siemens SE587) there are four LAN sockets
> (would they be called RJ45?) only one is used and is connected to my lap
> top. What purpose could the the other three sockets be put to.?

Attaching more computers etc. The router will act as a switch - enabling
each attached device to participate in a LAN, and also as a gateway -
allowing each of the networked computers to get connectivity to the
internet.

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 30, 2010, 1:04:20 PM5/30/10
to
On 30/05/10 16:09, Donwill wrote:


>> I'm replying to your initial post in uk.d-i-y and crossposting to
>> uk.comp.home-networking to bring them into the conversation.
> Yes, good idea, Thanks.
>>
>> We have already discussed some of the obvious alternatives, using
>> wireless and mains networking. We have established that cat 5e or cat
>> 6 are the options for cabled Ethernet.
> On looking at the price of 30Meters of Cat5e and Cat6 there was only
> approx �3 or �4 difference, on that basis and for future proofing it
> seems wise to go for
> Cat6 .

It's not just a question of the type of cable you use, the standards
also specify things like the maximum length of conductor that is allowed
to be untwisted at the ends. For Cat 6 I believe that it's 5mm. This is
unlikely to be an issue for a home network.

>>
>> There have been suggestions about building a file-storage system (NAS)
>> using a spare PC but as I understand it you don't think this is a
>> viable option for you. That leaves the option of buying a NAS device
>> or something similar.
> Yes maybe someone can discuss/advise?

There are a lot of options available. There are dozens of manufacturers
making NAS devices. A lot of them offer additional services such as
media streaming.

>
>>
>>
> In the back of my router (Siemens SE587) there are four LAN sockets
> (would they be called RJ45?) only one is used and is connected to my lap
> top. What purpose could the the other three sockets be put to.?

The usual arrangement is that the router incorporates a 100Mb switching
hub that allows up to four RJ45 cables to be connected. These could be
to computers, NAS devices, networked printers, VoIP phones or even games
consoles. If there's a need for more than four devices you can plug in a
switch that can connect more devices. Four and eight port 100Mb switches
are quite reasonably priced. Note that at the moment a 100Mb network
should be fine and using cabling rated for Gigabit services is only a
future-proofing precaution.

It's even possible that a Wifi or mains networking connection will do
everything you need, in which case you won't need to lay cables at all.
It all depends on how much bandwidth you need. If all you need to do is
to copy a few small files across the network overnight at the end of the
day then you won't need much bandwidth. If you want to copy the entire
contents of a terabyte disk every hour then you will need something
beyond the usual home network. Only you can tell us what you want to do
and how fast you need to do it. Without that information people can only
offer suggestions based on their own requirements and not on yours.

After bandwidth considerations you need to think about network topology.
Whereabouts will you be using your computers. The router needs to stay
somewhere close to the phone socket, where else do you need network
connections? Does the construction of the house allow access everywhere
using a single Wifi base unit in the router? Do you need access in a
shed or loft?

Lastly you need to consider what data you want to store and whether
there are any special considerations. How much value do you place on
your data, and how much effort is reasonable to protect it against loss
or corruption. Is it "sensitive personal data" as dealt with by the Data
Protection Act? Is it commercially sensitive? Does it have great
sentimental value? Any of these might mean that you may need to consider
information security, and this can affect your choices about hardware.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

Dave Liquorice

unread,
May 30, 2010, 2:34:01 PM5/30/10
to
On 30 May 2010 15:31:34 GMT, Huge wrote:

>> In the back of my router (Siemens SE587) there are four LAN
sockets
>
> The router has a built-in hub.

I'd be very surprised if it was a hub rather than a switch. Digging
about it is described as a switch. A hub sends anything on any input
to all the other outputs, a switch only sends to the relevant ouput.

> You can plug any other devices you like in there and they will all be on
> the same network.

Might be on the same network...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Steve Firth

unread,
May 30, 2010, 3:30:55 PM5/30/10
to
Adrian C <em...@here.invalid> wrote:

No, 350 to be accurate. Of course it would help if you knew what you
were talking about.

Andy Burns

unread,
May 30, 2010, 3:55:37 PM5/30/10
to
Steve Firth wrote:

Err ... sure you don't mean feet?

Gigabit Ethernet over cat5e or cat6 copper (IEEE 802.3ab) is specified
up to 100 metres, wiring between patch panel and outlet is usually
limited to 90m, to allow for 5m patch cable at each end.

John

unread,
May 30, 2010, 4:30:51 PM5/30/10
to

You really are one Grade A Plonker Firth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabit_Ethernet


tony sayer

unread,
May 30, 2010, 4:19:35 PM5/30/10
to
In article <86f57o...@mid.individual.net>, Donwill <Donwill.seesig@in
valid.invalid> scribeth thus

Yes.. Well worth installing:))..
>Cheers
>Don
>

--
Tony Sayer

Steve Firth

unread,
May 30, 2010, 4:30:53 PM5/30/10
to
Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

> Gigabit Ethernet over cat5e or cat6 copper (IEEE 802.3ab) is specified
> up to 100 metres, wiring between patch panel and outlet is usually
> limited to 90m, to allow for 5m patch cable at each end.

Cat 5 is rated to 100m, 5e to 350m but for some reason people tend to
work to the Cat 5 limit. Cat 6 is rated to 550m, Cat 7 to 1km.

Message has been deleted

Andy Burns

unread,
May 30, 2010, 5:51:40 PM5/30/10
to
Steve Firth wrote:

> Cat 5 is rated to 100m, 5e to 350m but for some reason people tend to
> work to the Cat 5 limit.

People tend to work to the standards

> Cat 6 is rated to 550m,

Rated for what? 6V batteries and light bulbs? The O/P asked about
gigabit ethernet, I suggest you read IEEE 802.3-2008 clause 40.1.1
paragraph F

http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.3-2008_section3.pdf

The following are the objectives of 1000BASE-T:

f) Support operation over 100 meters of copper balanced
cabling as defined in 40.7

Nobody is pretending it will stop working at 101m or even 120m.

> Cat 7 to 1km.

Got any link to a standards body, cable manufacturer or network
equipment manufacturer to back that up? They could make a killing if
they merely advertised this capability that would eliminate the need for
fibre for 90% of customers.

T i m

unread,
May 30, 2010, 6:04:00 PM5/30/10
to


;-)

I think Steve may have Googled to here:

http://www.connectworld.net/syscon/support.htm

and read M as meters not Mhz (as his numbers tie up with their chart
exactly).

Cheers, T i m

Dave Liquorice

unread,
May 30, 2010, 7:29:00 PM5/30/10
to
On 30 May 2010 21:09:09 GMT, Huge wrote:

>>> The router has a built-in hub.
>>
>> I'd be very surprised if it was a hub rather than a switch.
Digging
>> about it is described as a switch. A hub sends anything on any
input
>> to all the other outputs, a switch only sends to the relevant
ouput.
>

> Yes, I know. The difference is irrelevant to the original poster. He
> wants help, not pedantry.

So feeding the OP incorrect information is helpful? There is a
significant difference between a hub and switch that, hopefully, the
OP is now aware of.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Message has been deleted

Rob Morley

unread,
May 31, 2010, 5:42:27 AM5/31/10
to
On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:34:01 +0100 (BST)
"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:

> On 30 May 2010 15:31:34 GMT, Huge wrote:
>
> >> In the back of my router (Siemens SE587) there are four LAN
> sockets
> >
> > The router has a built-in hub.
>
> I'd be very surprised if it was a hub rather than a switch. Digging
> about it is described as a switch. A hub sends anything on any input
> to all the other outputs, a switch only sends to the relevant ouput.

Actually hub describes the network topology and switch describes the
mode of operation - what is usually referred to as a switch is actually
a switching hub, the hub you describe is a repeating hub.

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 31, 2010, 6:17:02 AM5/31/10
to

The difference between a hub and a switch is negligible for the small
networks that a home networking group is likely to be considering. If I
wanted to be pedantic I'd point out that your correction is factually
incorrect in that the correct term is a switching hub. However life's
too short.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

Hugo Nebula

unread,
May 31, 2010, 6:17:39 AM5/31/10
to
[Default] On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:33:46 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Donwill <Donwill...@invalid.invalid>, randomly hit the keyboard
and wrote:

>I have a laptop which is full or so the message it displays tells me.

> I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
>would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
>if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
>inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
>days but how do I go about it.?

A D-link Network Storage Enclosure
(http://preview.tinyurl.com/34grjul) works fine for me. It's a print
server, it has a bittorrent app that means I don't need to leave my
computer on to download torrents, and it seems to be able to act as a
server for my telly (except the telly doesn't like the format of all
those videos I have on it (which is the telly's fault, not the storage
device's)).
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

Donwill

unread,
May 31, 2010, 8:58:40 AM5/31/10
to
On 31/05/2010 11:17, Hugo Nebula wrote:
> [Default] On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:33:46 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
> Donwill<Donwill...@invalid.invalid>, randomly hit the keyboard
> and wrote:
>
>
>> I have a laptop which is full or so the message it displays tells me.
>> I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
>> would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
>> if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
>> inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
>> days but how do I go about it.?
>>
> A D-link Network Storage Enclosure
> (http://preview.tinyurl.com/34grjul) works fine for me. It's a print
> server, it has a bittorrent app that means I don't need to leave my
> computer on to download torrents, and it seems to be able to act as a
> server for my telly (except the telly doesn't like the format of all
> those videos I have on it (which is the telly's fault, not the storage
> device's)).
>
Ahh! that looks like the type of kit I need, I've just downloaded the
Data sheet and Manual for later reading .

One of my computers has old but legally purchased software on it, do you
know if it would be possible to load this software on to the D-Link and
run it on any of the other 2 computers?

Thanks
Don

Bernard Peek

unread,
May 31, 2010, 9:27:14 AM5/31/10
to
On 31/05/10 13:58, Donwill wrote:

> One of my computers has old but legally purchased software on it, do you
> know if it would be possible to load this software on to the D-Link and
> run it on any of the other 2 computers?

There are two issues. One, whether it's physically possible and also
whether the license terms permit it. Only you can answer the second
question.

If you have the installation medium available it's probably possible to
install the software on a second machine. If you don't then it could be
very difficult. If the software predates Windows then you can probably
just copy all of its files across and they will work on the new machine
or on a file server. If it is a Windows application then there may be
files scattered in various system directories, not to mention registry
entries. Getting these right without going through a proper installation
process is likely to be difficult at best and probably impossible
without substantial knowledge of Windows.

You face the same problems if there is a problem with the laptop's disk.
You should be able to copy the entire contents of its disk, as a disk
image, to the file server.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 31, 2010, 6:26:49 AM5/31/10
to
In article <g1o5069u3vf9339ju...@4ax.com>,

T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> I think Steve may have Googled to here:

> http://www.connectworld.net/syscon/support.htm

> and read M as meters not Mhz (as his numbers tie up with their chart
> exactly).

Given Mr Firth claims to work in IT, a bit of a worry?

--
*Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

dennis@home

unread,
May 31, 2010, 12:59:10 PM5/31/10
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:511ffd3...@davenoise.co.uk...


> In article <g1o5069u3vf9339ju...@4ax.com>,
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>> I think Steve may have Googled to here:
>
>> http://www.connectworld.net/syscon/support.htm
>
>> and read M as meters not Mhz (as his numbers tie up with their chart
>> exactly).
>
> Given Mr Firth claims to work in IT, a bit of a worry?

You can get surprisingly far with cat 5/6/7 type cables and ethernet.
I did some work on dropping such cables in BT ducts.
You can't get anywhere near a km, 200m is quite easy.
If you could get 1km BT would be delivering Gig ethernet to homes by now.
The project failed, mainly because Valance said "if we put new copper into
the ground instead of fibre the press would crucify us".
Not everything is dropped because it wouldn't work or economics.

dennis@home

unread,
May 31, 2010, 1:27:58 PM5/31/10
to

"Dave Liquorice" <allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.co.uk...

Apart from the many circumstances where a switch will not work there is
little difference between a switch and a hub as far as functionality at
level 2 is concerned.
As nobody has stated where the switch is likely to fail I don't see how it
has helped the OP at all.
I'm not going to here as it will only confuse more people.

Steve Firth

unread,
May 31, 2010, 2:14:42 PM5/31/10
to
Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> > Cat 5 is rated to 100m, 5e to 350m but for some reason people tend to
> > work to the Cat 5 limit.
>
> People tend to work to the standards

And then seem to misunderstand them. You're quoting maximum segment
length, not maximum transmission distance which is at the simplest 2x
the segment length. Also the 100 metre limit is, IIRC based on 10dB
attenuation, yet at 300 metres Cat 5e has an attentuation of about 20dB
and still has an acceptable BER provided that one is not looking for
Gigabit performance.

FWIW, the industry that I worked in until recently uses Cat 5e for
TCP/IP comms with devices spaced between 100 metres (minimum) to 2.3km
maximum. For longer distances the line is split into two 1.2km segments.
No, it's not gigabit but it's perfectly usable at acceptable error rates
if lightly loaded.

Andy Burns

unread,
May 31, 2010, 3:34:56 PM5/31/10
to
Steve Firth wrote:

> FWIW, the industry that I worked in until recently uses Cat 5e for
> TCP/IP comms with devices spaced between 100 metres (minimum) to 2.3km
> maximum.

Ethernet devices? Presumably you'll have no problem providing a
reference to these devices?

dennis@home

unread,
May 31, 2010, 4:01:23 PM5/31/10
to

"Andy Burns" <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OISdnbLOu6n9kpnR...@brightview.co.uk...

More likely line drivers.

Andy Burns

unread,
May 31, 2010, 4:17:35 PM5/31/10
to
dennis@home wrote:

> You can get surprisingly far with cat 5/6/7 type cables and ethernet.

I'm quite willing to believe you can exceed the distance limit and get
away with it, I've pushed 100base-T to about 120m. The ethernet spec
isn't actually in terms of a distance, rather various losses across
specified frequencies and from cross-talk

e.g attenuation (dB) from DC to 100MHz

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2.1+f+^0.529+%2B+0.4%2Ff+from+0+to+100

The parameter that would seem to be the "hardest" limit is the
propagation delay of 570ns, even *at* c that would limit you to 170m, I
presume the velocity factor would be closer to 2/3c, so limit gigabit to
about 117m, or at least put you at risk of late collision detection if
you exceed it.

> I did some work on dropping such cables in BT ducts.
> You can't get anywhere near a km, 200m is quite easy.

I had a bit of a poke about yesterday to see who had tried exceeding the
limits, this guy did some tests at 150m

http://sf-alpha.bjgang.org/serendipity/index.php?/plugin/tag/Network+CAT6+Cable

With cat5e, 100Mb and 1000Mb failed completely, but 10Mb worked with
some errors.

With cat6, 10Mb worked perfectly, 1000Mb with very low error rate, but
100Mb had high error rate.

> If you could get 1km BT would be delivering Gig ethernet to homes by now.

I'd be quite happy with VDSL.

Andy Burns

unread,
May 31, 2010, 4:21:27 PM5/31/10
to
dennis@home wrote:

> "Andy Burns" wrote:


>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>> the industry that I worked in until recently uses Cat 5e for
>>> TCP/IP comms with devices spaced between 100 metres (minimum) to 2.3km
>>> maximum.
>>
>> Ethernet devices?
>

> More likely line drivers.

I assumed something similar, Mr Firth's garden path seemed quite obvious ...

Dave Saville

unread,
May 31, 2010, 4:22:40 PM5/31/10
to
On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:17:02 UTC, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> The difference between a hub and a switch is negligible for the small
> networks that a home networking group is likely to be considering. >
>

You have obviously never tried to use a hub when two of the other
boxes on it are FTPing video files or similar to each other.

--
Regards
Dave Saville

dennis@home

unread,
May 31, 2010, 4:34:39 PM5/31/10
to

"Dave Saville" <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:fV45K0OBJxbE-p...@bearpaw.bear.den...

You obviously haven't tried multicasting video with the switches typically
found in routers.

Andy Burns

unread,
May 31, 2010, 5:18:51 PM5/31/10
to
dennis@home wrote:

> More likely line drivers.

These look quite handy

http://www.patton.com/products/pe_products.asp?category=355&tab=ov

Let you trade speed for distance, depending whether you want symmetric
or asymmetric bandwidth, they're ethernet at each end, but certainly not
inbetween.

Robert Sneddon

unread,
May 31, 2010, 6:57:59 PM5/31/10
to
In message <K8KdnVayLq72DZ_R...@brightview.co.uk>, John
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>On 30/05/2010 16:09, Donwill wrote:
>
>> On looking at the price of 30Meters of Cat5e and Cat6 there was only
>> approx �3 or �4 difference, on that basis and for future proofing it
>> seems wise to go for
>> Cat6 .
>
>You can, although the cost starts to rise a bit if you are lots of it, like:
>
>http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Structured_wiring_system

A couple of things to note -- Cat6 cable is a bit "stiffer" than Cat5e
and can't be bent in as tight a radius so that if you're fixing it down
along skirting boards etc. be careful not to bend it too sharply.

Terminating blocks in wall sockets and patch panels should also be
rated for Cat6 if you are picky about the quality of service but short
runs at gigabit Ethernet (1000Mbps) rates will be OK even if they end up
in Cat5e blocks.

Patch leads, the ones with plugs on either end are used to connect
computers to switches and broadband routers. Cat6-rated patch leads
don't cost much more than Cat5e patch leads and it's worth spending the
money for the better-specced leads.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

Steve Firth

unread,
May 31, 2010, 8:22:19 PM5/31/10
to
Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

For short distances Cisco 2950s but also some cheap Chinese clones used
to connect devices over approximately 100-300 metres configured to half
duplex. The QoS settings limit the bandwidth to 1Mb/s but that's done to
restrict the upstream load. Physical restrictions mean that the shortest
cabling run possible is 200ft but geography adds to that with a typical
run being 440ft. Switches are positioned to service four devices at
approximately equal distances. For the longer distances Cisco 2950 LREs.

I'm told that the CRC failures are "acceptable" and certainly the
devices attached work perfectly well. The only place that I'm aware of
any problems is where a railway line ran parallel to the cable and
caused massive induced voltage spikes.

Andy Burns

unread,
Jun 1, 2010, 3:01:06 AM6/1/10
to
Steve Firth wrote:

> For short distances Cisco 2950s but also some cheap Chinese clones used
> to connect devices over approximately 100-300 metres configured to half
> duplex. The QoS settings limit the bandwidth to 1Mb/s but that's done to
> restrict the upstream load. Physical restrictions mean that the shortest
> cabling run possible is 200ft but geography adds to that with a typical
> run being 440ft. Switches are positioned to service four devices at
> approximately equal distances. For the longer distances Cisco 2950 LREs.
> I'm told that the CRC failures are "acceptable"

LRE was a cisco proprietary ethernet-like protocol never an IEEE
Ethernet standard.

I don't see how you can claim this counts as "being rated" above 100m,
using only 0.5% of the bandwidth and accepting the consequent errors is
well into "pushing your luck" territory, no problem with that provided
the user is aware, but they could hardly have raised a support call with
Cisco if it had stopped working could they?

> certainly the devices attached work perfectly well.

Hopefully no safety critical data involved?

Message has been deleted

Andy Champ

unread,
Jun 1, 2010, 2:15:17 PM6/1/10
to

Dunno about you but I doubt most homes have the four separate fast
devices necessary for this to be a problem.

Andy

Steve Firth

unread,
Jun 1, 2010, 3:10:00 PM6/1/10
to
Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't see how you can claim this counts as "being rated" above 100m,
> using only 0.5% of the bandwidth and accepting the consequent errors is
> well into "pushing your luck" territory, no problem with that provided
> the user is aware, but they could hardly have raised a support call with
> Cisco if it had stopped working could they?

Well, LRE was only used for the kilometre+ segments. I can't recall for
the life of me who suggested that ethernet could be pushed to 175metre
segments but it worked, total length 350 metres as previously stated.

> > certainly the devices attached work perfectly well.
>
> Hopefully no safety critical data involved?

Umm well, <cough> you see, like umm. That's a statement that I couldn't
entirely make with a clear conscience. So I won't.

Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jun 1, 2010, 3:35:11 PM6/1/10
to
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:15:17 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

> Dunno about you but I doubt most homes have the four separate fast
> devices necessary for this to be a problem.

Times is a changing, the telly has ethernet port and DLNA. The
network disc storage has a DLNA media server in it. The PVR also has
a ethernet port and may well work as a media server. Start streaming
decent quality (aka Blu-ray) HD video about the place and bandwidth
soon gets eaten up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Andy Champ

unread,
Jun 1, 2010, 4:21:46 PM6/1/10
to

That's three devices.

SAN<->PVR might fill most of a gigabit channel (though I'd be surprised
if you got more than 25%) but the telly will then have nothing to talk
to. And in any case wouldn't need more than a Blur-ray's bandwidth -
isn't that 54mbit?

You need two pairs of devices, each at high speed. Four PCs will do it,
or two PCs and two disc servers, or such like. I still think that's
rare. Probably almost no-one not on one of these groups!

Andy

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 1, 2010, 8:21:31 PM6/1/10
to

With a repeating hub, a couple of PCs doing a DVD image transfer will
have a fairly serious detriment on any of the other clients. Having said
that, gigabit repeating hubs rather than switching ones are rare beasts,
so not something worth worrying about.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jun 2, 2010, 1:36:49 AM6/2/10
to
John Rumm wrote:
>
>
> With a repeating hub, a couple of PCs doing a DVD image transfer will
> have a fairly serious detriment on any of the other clients. Having said
> that, gigabit repeating hubs rather than switching ones are rare beasts,
> so not something worth worrying about.
>
>
I am not sure I have seen even a 100BaseT *repeater*.

Andy Burns

unread,
Jun 2, 2010, 2:32:07 AM6/2/10
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I am not sure I have seen even a 100BaseT *repeater*.

When 10/100Mb hubs first became available, it was still expensive to
have fully switched LANs, so they tended to be a 10Mb repeater and a
100Mb repeater, connected via a bridge (i.e. 2 port switch) in a single
box, with enough intelligence to detect device speed and connect each
port to the relevant repeater.

e.g Cisco fast hub 300, 3COM Superstack dual speed hub 500.

Until managed switches with mirror/monitor ports became widely
available, this type of hub was quite handy wnen you wanted to sniff
traffic between two 100Mb devices.

Mark

unread,
Jun 2, 2010, 5:25:35 AM6/2/10
to
On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:17:39 +0100, Hugo Nebula <abuse@localhost>
wrote:

>[Default] On Sun, 30 May 2010 10:33:46 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
>Donwill <Donwill...@invalid.invalid>, randomly hit the keyboard
>and wrote:
>
>>I have a laptop which is full or so the message it displays tells me.
>> I could buy an external disc I suppose, but I got to thinking that it
>>would be useful to archive old data which I want to keep and refer to it
>>if necessary and also make it available to all computers (3) in our home
>>inc Printer and Wlan. I would guess that it's perfectly possible these
>>days but how do I go about it.?
>
>A D-link Network Storage Enclosure
>(http://preview.tinyurl.com/34grjul) works fine for me. It's a print
>server, it has a bittorrent app that means I don't need to leave my
>computer on to download torrents, and it seems to be able to act as a
>server for my telly (except the telly doesn't like the format of all
>those videos I have on it (which is the telly's fault, not the storage
>device's)).

If you want a low cost solution then I can recommend the Buffalo
Linkstations. They come with HD included so you can't (easily)
upgrade them. Another advantage is that they need no client software
installed so will work with non-windoze operating systems.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 2, 2010, 6:33:53 AM6/2/10