On 7/10/2013 6:53 PM, James Wolf wrote:
A couple things here.
If your wired network is using a cable that is anything over 100 meters, you
are at the extent of what you can run. The reason is that for each pair of
conductors in a CAT-5/6 cable the twist is different, and the next frame
will start to overlap signals on the first frame.
I might phrase it a bit differently in that at gigabit speeds the
packets take so little time you create your own collisions and one
collision creates others
You can however extend
the length by using a switch. In using a 1 GB wired link, it is critical
that there are no sharp bends,
Cat 6 kinks easily so it pays to use sweeps and when pulling, never let
the cable coil up where it goes into the conduit as its a sure fire rout
to a kink and although it's not a short, the data will treat it as if it
were.
I've been running parallel, 130 ft runs of CAT6 with a gigabit network
with no problems and there are 9, 90 degree bends in each run.
cables don't cross or are not rolled up.
Early on using standard CAT5 you were lucky if you could get a 1 GB steady
rate at 20 ft. Newer cables, CAT5e and Cat6 are much better.
CAT6 uses dividers so each pair is held separate from the others.
Best bet is
CAT7 which has shielding around each pair of conductors and tolerances are
very tight, but you have to be careful that your connectors match your
equipment. I'm a few years dated on this information so someone might be
able to shed some light on current practice.
Have you looked into the new wireless standard, 802.11ac?
I have it on my newest router, but it's still slow.
It is just
starting to hit the market and I know of no one who has used it yet, but I
hear that it is in the new Mac computers. You can go to exotic measures
with it and get over 1 GB aggregate rates.
I have not been able to get a gigabit with it yet and I'd have to use a
repeater to reach the shop which has bonded metal walls and ceiling.
It's only a little over a 100 feet from the router.
73
Roger (K8RI)
I think it can use up to 160 MHz
of bandwidth in the 5 GHz band.
Jim, KR9U
________________
On 7/8/2013 6:50 PM, K8RI wrote:
I can't get rid of the wired network. wireless isn't fast enough for
large file transfers and I do a lot of photography with typically 8 to
10 terabytes on each of 4 computers. Unfortunately even a gigabit
network is slow when talking this much data. OTOH I've reached the
point where the computers I/O is now the limiting factor.
Go optical fiber.
-Steve K8LX
Steve,
Can you offer suggestions as to how to make fiber practical for a DIYer? I
would love to run fiber from my barn to the house, a run of about 100
meters in buried ENT.
Bulk FO direct-bury cable, connectors and media converters are sort of
affordable, especially given the advantages over copper.
The problem seems to be fitting the connectors to the cable. I have not
found a source for pre-assembled direct bury cable, and I am not certain
that I would be able to pull it through the conduit anyway. Tool kits for
the purpose are way out of reach, and I have not found a rental source. I
do know a couple of folks with training and tools, but they're not
interested in just applying the connectors, and will not help me pull
cable that I sourced. Paying one of these guys for the entire installation
is just plain not affordable.
--
Art Greenberg
WA2LLN
art@artg.tv
*********
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|