On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:23:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

But the fact that there was audio involved is irrelevant. IOW, you
brought it in as a red herring.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
because of it? I have, and that is why I am aware of the variables and
take them all into account. I don't just blow things off as
inconsequential until after inspection.

Collisions? In a switched network? Really? Are you sure the last
time you did this stuff, it wasn't 10base2?

Did I say a switched network?

Can it happen?

"However, it is possible for a collision to occur on a switched
topology if more than one device is connected on the same port of the
switch, like if you connect two PCs to a hub and the hub to a switch
port, but notice that the collision would be possible only because of
the hub."