Re: Using the Sewer Vent for Cable or Cat5e Run?

[Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:25:51 -0600, sylvan butler
<ZsdbUse1+noZs_0609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:22:04 -0400, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In article <slrnegm3nu.lm9.ZsdbUse1+noZs_0609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> ZsdbUse1+noZs_0609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>>> to 801.11g.  No video is pretty decent, but I find myself wanting to
>
>That should have been "Now video is pretty decent."  :)
>
>>> copy 1gb to 8gb files between systems.  Time for copper.
>
>> Are you going GbE?  I don't see the huge gain from 54Mb to 100Mb.
>
>The difference is HUGE between wireless 54Mb and 100baseT ethernet.  For
>one, you really get 100Mbit on the ethernet.

Not quite. There's always SOME overhead. Also, the computer and OS
limit the speed you can get. Still expect much greater speed than with
wireless.

BTW, I definitely do get more than 54Mbps on a wired network.

> For another, you get
>full-duplex.  I've never seen 54Mb come even close to 54Mb thruput in
>any realistic scenario.  Since it is only half-duplex (only one side can
>transmit at any given moment) about the best you get is 25Mb.  Then
>consider that the collision domain is _every_system_ on the wireless net
>and your thruput goes way down.

Also, you can expect MUCH LOWER range than advertised (you don't have
ideal conditions at your house). When the signal gets weaker, speed
goes down even more.

I'd still use wireless, but only when necessary (like with a laptop
that's moved around a lot). Never as a substitute for an ethernet
cable.

>  I'm actually running one 'G' and two
>'B' nets at home, using all three non-colliding channels, just to
>seperate traffic.  :(
>

I seem to heard that 3 is about the most non-colliding channels you
can get.

>I'm contemplating GigE.  Like you, all I need is a switch.  When I see
>a deal I can't refuse, I'll jump.  The rest of the infrastructure is
>ready.
>

If it doesn't cost too much more than 100Mbps equipment.

>> I'd put wires where there would be computers and in the basement
>> and such.  I don't think I'd wire the living room and dining room
>
>Wire dual runs of Cat5 or better to anyplace you might want TV or audio.
>Digital media distribution is the future, and Cat-5 means you can get
>not only the content, but with power-over-ethernet (POE) simple devices
>won't even need a power cable.  But your entertainment center definitely
>needs network connectivity.
>
>I'd recommend you consider wiring dual runs pretty darn near everywhere.
>

One run is probably enough (you can always add a switch there if you
need to). Of course, when you're putting in that one, it wouldn't be
much harder to run two instead.

>> can be replaced.  Same for the entertainment center.
>
>Definitely.
>
>In the future I expect something far better than 802.11 for wireless, or
>else networking will be wired in homes the way power was wired 50 years
>ago -- outlets in every room, on most walls, but never enough or in the
>right place.  Unlike power which had to be codified to force outlets
>every 12 feet and on every wall, the haphazard approach for networking
>will probably be good enough, since 802.11 can fill in the gaps.
>
>sdb
--
95 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."