Just at the point before plastering, so I intend to build in the option
to hard wire internet and network connections by installing
trunking/conduit from the top of the house (2nd floor) to the bottom
(cellar) in one vertical run. I intend to cut a channel into the
existing plaster and fit the conduit. The plasterer can then make good -
the whole house is getting a skim.

It's going to be easiest to keep all the gubbins (NAS and switch) in the
cellar, which would require the capacity for 6 Ethernet cables. I'm
using homeplugs at the moment which are fine - I'm after better performance.

What's the best sort to use (round/rectangle section?) and what's the
minimum diameter/area I'd need? A link to something would be handy -
from say:

http://www.screwfix.com/c/electrical...duit/cat830492

Thanks, Rob

On Sunday 28 April 2013 08:57 RJH wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Just at the point before plastering, so I intend to build in the option
to hard wire internet and network connections by installing
trunking/conduit from the top of the house (2nd floor) to the bottom
(cellar) in one vertical run. I intend to cut a channel into the
existing plaster and fit the conduit. The plasterer can then make good -
the whole house is getting a skim.

It's going to be easiest to keep all the gubbins (NAS and switch) in the
cellar, which would require the capacity for 6 Ethernet cables. I'm
using homeplugs at the moment which are fine - I'm after better
performance.

What's the best sort to use (round/rectangle section?) and what's the
minimum diameter/area I'd need? A link to something would be handy -
from say:

http://www.screwfix.com/c/electrical...duit/cat830492

Thanks, Rob

20mm oval conduit will take 2 cables including cat5e an aerial.

Oval will probably site in the depth of the plaster avoiding the need to
chisel deep chases.

However, for the run you are talking about, you will need backboxes with
blanking lids on every floor to both join the conduit and to act as pulling
access.

20mm conduit will take 3-4 cables (if you pull them together and have
someelse up top feeding them in and keeping the twists under control.
This would be the betetr option if it is not impractical.

For total luxury, 4x20mm conduit, double gang boxes on each floor again for
pulling points.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 28/04/2013 09:22 Tim Watts wrote:

20mm oval conduit will take 2 cables including cat5e an aerial.

With most motherboards offering gigabit now, and speeds likely to
increase in the future, wouldn't it be better to use Cat6?

--
F

On Sunday 28 April 2013 11:18 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 09:22 Tim Watts wrote:

20mm oval conduit will take 2 cables including cat5e an aerial.

With most motherboards offering gigabit now, and speeds likely to
increase in the future, wouldn't it be better to use Cat6?


I'm pretty sure Cat6a will fit 2 to a tube - but I can only personally vouch
for Cat5e - which is gigabit.

Or are you proposing wiring for 10 gig?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 28/04/2013 11:52 Tim Watts wrote:

On Sunday 28 April 2013 11:18 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 09:22 Tim Watts wrote:

20mm oval conduit will take 2 cables including cat5e an aerial.

With most motherboards offering gigabit now, and speeds likely to
increase in the future, wouldn't it be better to use Cat6?


I'm pretty sure Cat6a will fit 2 to a tube - but I can only personally vouch
for Cat5e - which is gigabit.

My understanding is that 5e is not gigabit, but almost gigabit. The Cat6
I have here is physically, as near as makes no difference, the same size
as Cat5e.

Or are you proposing wiring for 10 gig?

No, just going for what is currently fastest at a reasonable cost.

--
F

F wrote:

My understanding is that 5e is not gigabit, but almost gigabit. The Cat6
I have here is physically, as near as makes no difference, the same size
as Cat5e.

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit. If you have cat6 you can use it,
its extra stiffness might help threading it into conduit, but its
greater bend radius might hinder too.

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

My understanding is that 5e is not gigabit, but almost gigabit. The Cat6
I have here is physically, as near as makes no difference, the same size
as Cat5e.

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

--
F

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=798775&contentType =Standards&queryText%3D802.3ab

On 28/04/2013 12:40, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=798775&contentType =Standards&queryText%3D802.3ab


I for one have regularly seen Cat5e achieve gigabit speeds without any
difficulty.

In a very "noisy" environment, such as within a server cabinet, I would
choose to use Cat6, if feasible. But even there, I have seen Cat5e work OK.

--
Rod

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:57:14 AM UTC+1, RJH wrote:

Just at the point before plastering, so I intend to build in the option
to hard wire internet and network connections by installing
trunking/conduit from the top of the house (2nd floor) to the bottom
(cellar) in one vertical run.

Whatever counduit you put in, I'd suggest fitting both conduit AND however many 5es you can get in, placed outside the conduit. They can be terminated another day when needed. Why? Its easier than threading later, it gives you more total capacity, more expandability, the 5e can always be used for other things in 20years time, and 5e's very cheap.


NT

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:57:14 +0100, RJH wrote:

It's going to be easiest to keep all the gubbins (NAS and switch) in
the cellar, which would require the capacity for 6 Ethernet cables.

You'll need several runs of 20 mm conduit to get 6 cables in. Is 6 really
enough cable is cheap, installation messy and expensive...

Have you an internal soil stack already boxed in? Probably not if you
have a house old enough to have a cellar.

If you stick something square in a corner it doesn't show much, provided
you don't choose a corner that is always viewable. So think about ones
next to doors (the door when open will hide most of it) or next to
windows with curtains. Think I'd go got something with around 1.5 square
inches of duct space, once a duct starts to geta bit full pulling more in
gets much harder. 40 x 25 will be starting to get full but with a lid you
don't have to pull cables in...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e, just not as well as it would over Cat6. It's
up to the OP to decide what to do: I have no interest other than to
offer a point of view that he might want to research/consider.

--
F

On 28/04/2013 12:45, polygonum wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:40, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=798775&contentType =Standards&queryText%3D802.3ab



I for one have regularly seen Cat5e achieve gigabit speeds without any
difficulty.

In a very "noisy" environment, such as within a server cabinet, I would
choose to use Cat6, if feasible. But even there, I have seen Cat5e work OK.


You will probably never see a problem with short cables but you may with
100m cables. Not many server cabinets use more than a metre or three.

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

On Apr 28, 4:38*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

Cat5e is, as already mentioned many times, absolutely fine for gigabit
ethernet up to 100m.

Cat6 will give you no measurable advantage unless you have a very
noisy environment.

Gbit ethernet uses exactly the same frequencies as 100Mbit. The
difference is in the coding scheme, the number of pairs used and in
the use of full-duplex with echo-cancellation.

However, if you really want to future-proof the system, install some
duplex 50um (OM2 or preferably OM3) fibre. Preterminated lengths up
to around 25 or 30m with duplex LC connectors can be obtained for a
few GBP on eBay. As long as you pull the fibre through before any
Cat5e cables, the LC connectors will easily fit down 20mm conduit.
850nm SFP transceivers are very cheap on eBay - sometimes as little as
99p plus postage. Gigabit switches with a pair of SFP sockets are
fairly inexpensive now. The low cost ones don't care what make of
transceiver you use. Any speed rating of 1Gbit/s or higher will
interwork with any other for Gbit ethernet. (I recently tested a
1Gbit/s device together with a 10Gbit/s and they inter-worked fine.)

Single mode fibre gives better bandwidth and range than multimode,
but the 1310nm single mode transceivers are generally much more
expensive. OM3 multimode fibre will easily give you 10Gbit/s
transmission anywhere in even the largest house.

John

On 28/04/2013 15:19, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:57:14 +0100, RJH wrote:

It's going to be easiest to keep all the gubbins (NAS and switch) in
the cellar, which would require the capacity for 6 Ethernet cables.

You'll need several runs of 20 mm conduit to get 6 cables in. Is 6 really
enough cable is cheap, installation messy and expensive...

Have you an internal soil stack already boxed in? Probably not if you
have a house old enough to have a cellar.

If you stick something square in a corner it doesn't show much, provided
you don't choose a corner that is always viewable. So think about ones
next to doors (the door when open will hide most of it) or next to
windows with curtains. Think I'd go got something with around 1.5 square
inches of duct space, once a duct starts to geta bit full pulling more in
gets much harder. 40 x 25 will be starting to get full but with a lid you
don't have to pull cables in...


+1

On 28/04/2013 15:26, F wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e, just not as well as it would over Cat6.

My considered technical response to that would be: ********.

(gigabit ethernet runs at the same baud rate as 100Mb ethernet, so it no
more stresses it or pushes the limits than 100Mb).

If all you need is gigabit, then cat5e will work perfectly and cat6 will
offer no advantage (although also work perfectly - its just more
expensive and harder to wire with)

It's
up to the OP to decide what to do: I have no interest other than to
offer a point of view that he might want to research/consider.

Pulling fibre would be one option. Although with the fall in the price
of managed switches, just laying in a few extra cat5e runs would enable
you to take advantage of bonding together a couple of gigabit runs if
you really need extra bandwidth on some runs.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/04/2013 16:38 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

I did. Because it doesn't perform in a gigabit environment as well as Cat6.

You know, I really have got better things to do than to indulge you in a
back and forth because you want to spend your time trying to stoke a
petty argument over semantics. I offered a reasonable comment to help
the OP. I'm content that it was accurate and worth his consideration. If
it makes you feel better or helps your ego then go ahead and have the
last word.

--
F

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 16:38 Andy Burns wrote:

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

I did. Because it doesn't perform in a gigabit environment as well as Cat6.

You're suggesting that Cat6 performs better for gigabit ethernet, I
can't accept that. The most I could accept is that Cat6 would have to be
further out of spec than cat5 before problems were encountered.

I offered a reasonable comment to help the OP. I'm content that it
was accurate and worth his consideration.

Funny how everyone else disagrees with you ...

On 28/04/2013 17:21, John Walliker wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:38 pm, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

Cat5e is, as already mentioned many times, absolutely fine for gigabit
ethernet up to 100m.

Cat6 will give you no measurable advantage unless you have a very
noisy environment.

Gbit ethernet uses exactly the same frequencies as 100Mbit. The
difference is in the coding scheme, the number of pairs used and in
the use of full-duplex with echo-cancellation.

However, if you really want to future-proof the system, install some
duplex 50um (OM2 or preferably OM3) fibre. Preterminated lengths up
to around 25 or 30m with duplex LC connectors can be obtained for a
few GBP on eBay. As long as you pull the fibre through before any
Cat5e cables, the LC connectors will easily fit down 20mm conduit.
850nm SFP transceivers are very cheap on eBay - sometimes as little as
99p plus postage. Gigabit switches with a pair of SFP sockets are
fairly inexpensive now. The low cost ones don't care what make of
transceiver you use. Any speed rating of 1Gbit/s or higher will
interwork with any other for Gbit ethernet. (I recently tested a
1Gbit/s device together with a 10Gbit/s and they inter-worked fine.)

Single mode fibre gives better bandwidth and range than multimode,
but the 1310nm single mode transceivers are generally much more
expensive. OM3 multimode fibre will easily give you 10Gbit/s
transmission anywhere in even the largest house.

John

Totally over the top. Cat6 cable will support 10Gb up to 40m, and if the
runs are longer then Cat 6A will work at 10Gb. Cat5e would give Gb
speeds and can be used as a draw wire if in the future the OP needs
10Gb. By the time he gets round to needing the speeds that fibre is
required them even OM3 will be outdated.

--
yendor

On Apr 28, 7:16*pm, yendor wrote:
On 28/04/2013 17:21, John Walliker wrote:

OM3 multimode fibre will easily give you 10Gbit/s
transmission anywhere in even the largest house.


Totally over the top.

Of course it is. But preterminated fibre from eBay is so cheap that
cost is not a reason to avoid doing it. However, fibre does give one
real advantage over copper cable for long runs. Total immunity to
propagating lightning. The mains cabling is still there of course,
but there have been many instances of network cables spreading
lighning damage around.

By the time he gets round to needing the speeds that fibre is
required them even OM3 will be outdated.

Maybe. Pre-terminated 9um single mode fibre cables (OS1) are just as
cheap. Its hard to see how they could get outdated in the forseeable
future. They will usually (every time I have tried it) work perfectly
well with cheap 850nm multi-mode transceivers, most of which use vcsel
diodes which put a lot of light into a single mode fibre, even though
this is not what they were designed for.

Yes, totally OTT, but very easy and very cheap to do:-)

Another slightly more serious thought though. Fibre with its first
layer of plastic cladding but that has not been incorporated into a
robust cable is slightly less than 1mm thick, so several fibres could
be run up the corner of a wall and wallpapered over without leaving a
discernable bump. This might be useful in a listed building or
similar situation. Such fibre could also be run through conduits
containing mains wiring - as could duplex fibre cables without
connectors. Terminating them is a bit fiddly, but kits do exist that
need minimal equipment.

John

On Sunday 28 April 2013 12:04 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 11:52 Tim Watts wrote:

On Sunday 28 April 2013 11:18 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 09:22 Tim Watts wrote:

20mm oval conduit will take 2 cables including cat5e an aerial.

With most motherboards offering gigabit now, and speeds likely to
increase in the future, wouldn't it be better to use Cat6?


I'm pretty sure Cat6a will fit 2 to a tube - but I can only personally
vouch for Cat5e - which is gigabit.

My understanding is that 5e is not gigabit, but almost gigabit. The Cat6
I have here is physically, as near as makes no difference, the same size
as Cat5e.

Your understand is not correct. Cat 5e is very definately gigabit - I've
been around 1000's of such cables in many different installations.

Cat 6a can pull 10gig over short distances. You don;t wnat "Cat 6" in the
same way you don;t want "Cat 5". - you do want Cat 6a if going down this
route. It's a similar size, but it is a *lot* stiffer thanks to the
stiffening core and extra screens.

I believe it will also not terminate in normal Cat5e jacks so you'd have to
go the whole hog.

Or are you proposing wiring for 10 gig?

No, just going for what is currently fastest at a reasonable cost.


Cat 5e then. It'll cover your house (in terms of max specified cable
lengths) and it's cheap as chips and easy to work with

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Sunday 28 April 2013 12:22 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

My understanding is that 5e is not gigabit, but almost gigabit. The Cat6
I have here is physically, as near as makes no difference, the same size
as Cat5e.

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html


"Current applications running at 1 Gb/s are really pushing the limits of
category 5e cabling."

That's complete and utter ********. Gigabit is within the stated spec. Yes,
it's very clever how they do it. But it is not "pushing the limits" which
makes it sound like it will fall over if a gnat farts.

Must be a company that's trying to sell Cat6a.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Sunday 28 April 2013 12:45 polygonum wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 12:40, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=798775&contentType =Standards&queryText%3D802.3ab


I for one have regularly seen Cat5e achieve gigabit speeds without any
difficulty.

In a very "noisy" environment, such as within a server cabinet, I would
choose to use Cat6, if feasible. But even there, I have seen Cat5e work
OK.


+1.

12 years, 1000's gigabit connections over Cat5a, several different sites -
including my own house.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Sunday 28 April 2013 16:18 dennis@home wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 12:45, polygonum wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:40, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=798775&contentType =Standards&queryText%3D802.3ab



I for one have regularly seen Cat5e achieve gigabit speeds without any
difficulty.

In a very "noisy" environment, such as within a server cabinet, I would
choose to use Cat6, if feasible. But even there, I have seen Cat5e work
OK.


You will probably never see a problem with short cables but you may with
100m cables. Not many server cabinets use more than a metre or three.

Nonsense.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Sunday 28 April 2013 15:26 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e, just not as well as it would over Cat6. It's
up to the OP to decide what to do: I have no interest other than to
offer a point of view that he might want to research/consider.


What does "as well" mean? For the specified distance (90m on the
installation cable plus 2x 5m patch cables and connectors=100m total) it is
completely reliable.

Cat6a does not given any additional length for gig - still 100m.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Sunday 28 April 2013 17:39 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/04/2013 16:38 Andy Burns wrote:

F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:40 Andy Burns wrote:

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

I did. Because it doesn't perform in a gigabit environment as well as
Cat6.

You know, I really have got better things to do than to indulge you in a
back and forth because you want to spend your time trying to stoke a
petty argument over semantics. I offered a reasonable comment to help
the OP. I'm content that it was accurate and worth his consideration. If
it makes you feel better or helps your ego then go ahead and have the
last word.


Was it a certified installation? ie had it been tested (using TDR type
testers, not "Maplin did I get the wiring the right way around" testers) and
signed off by competant installers?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

Definitely go for cat 6a which is gigabit and not 10/100 if you are going to all that effort.

If you are running your switch hub from the basement be aware of a good design would be to place the hub in the middle of the house and run off connection in a spider the hub should be the shortest distance from the incoming phone/cable. The shorter the distance the faster the connection.

This is also very important when copying computer to computer when speed is everything and not using internet.

A good idea a friend did while your at it is to wire a double socket and 2 cables. Then from your hub you can easily plug between your internal network and wire in a phone line by just a cable movement in the switch panel.

dennis@home wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:45, polygonum wrote:
On 28/04/2013 12:40, Andy Burns wrote:
F wrote:

On 28/04/2013 12:08 Andy Burns wrote:

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit.

http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab
spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=798775&contentType =Standards&queryText%3D802.3ab





I for one have regularly seen Cat5e achieve gigabit speeds without any
difficulty.

In a very "noisy" environment, such as within a server cabinet, I would
choose to use Cat6, if feasible. But even there, I have seen Cat5e work OK.


You will probably never see a problem with short cables but you may with
100m cables. Not many server cabinets use more than a metre or three.

I have a 50 metre or so length of cat5e which I'm sure isn't fully up to
standards, I crimped it myself to get the exact length I wanted and to
make it easier to thread the cable first. I has worked at 1000Mb/s ever
since I installed it.

--
Chris Green

On Sunday 28 April 2013 22:46 hewhowalksamongus wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Definitely go for cat 6a which is gigabit and not 10/100 if you are
going to all that effort.

Once again for the gentleman who didn't read the thread:

Cat5e is gigabit for a range of 100m.

Cat6a is gigabit for a range of 100m
Cat6a can do 10 gig for a range of 100m.

Cat6 is 100m at gig and 55/37m at 10 gig depending on environment.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 29/04/2013 08:30, wrote:

I have a 50 metre or so length of cat5e which I'm sure isn't fully up to
standards, I crimped it myself to get the exact length I wanted and to
make it easier to thread the cable first. I has worked at 1000Mb/s ever
since I installed it.


Why wouldn't it be up to standards?
Didn't you use the correct wire or plugs?
I suppose it would be cat 5 as 5e needs tests done but is the same if
both of them are done correctly.

hewhowalksamongus wrote:

The shorter the distance the faster the
connection.

This is also very important when copying computer to computer when speed
is everything and not using internet.

For gigabit the duration of a (non-jumbo) packet is
(1500 * 8) / 1,000,000,000 = 12 microseconds

The difference between the longest possible cable (100m) and the
shortest possible (let's say zero) is
(100 - 0) / (300,000,000 * 0.7) = 0.4 microseconds

So the most difference that cable length can make is 3%, and that's
ignoring interpacket gaps, forwarding delays within the switch (if
you're using one), the interrupt rate of the NIC, and the overhead of
the operating system. So cable length is barely important at all ...

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:

Cat 5e then. It'll cover your house (in terms of max specified cable
lengths) and it's cheap as chips and easy to work with

but do make sure you buy real Cat 5e, and not CCA/CCS (copper covered
aluminium/steel), which are sold as cheaper equivalents, when they
aren't equivalent.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:57:14 +0100, RJH wrote:

It's going to be easiest to keep all the gubbins (NAS and switch) in
the cellar, which would require the capacity for 6 Ethernet cables.

You'll need several runs of 20 mm conduit to get 6 cables in. Is 6 really
enough cable is cheap, installation messy and expensive...

When I moved in 13 years ago, I ran a pair of Cat5e to each room,
used for network and phones.

If I was doing it now, on top of that I would add in loft, basement
(if you have one), garage, kitchen (which I omitted), and you would
want at least an extra pair (or more) to your entertainment centre
location(s), and home-office/workshop.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 29/04/2013 10:01, Andy Burns wrote:
hewhowalksamongus wrote:

The shorter the distance the faster the
connection.

This is also very important when copying computer to computer when speed
is everything and not using internet.

For gigabit the duration of a (non-jumbo) packet is
(1500 * 8) / 1,000,000,000 = 12 microseconds

The difference between the longest possible cable (100m) and the
shortest possible (let's say zero) is
(100 - 0) / (300,000,000 * 0.7) = 0.4 microseconds

So the most difference that cable length can make is 3%, and that's
ignoring interpacket gaps, forwarding delays within the switch (if
you're using one), the interrupt rate of the NIC, and the overhead of
the operating system. So cable length is barely important at all ...


I would say its totally irrelevant as the sliding window for data and
acks, etc. allow for transmission delays several orders of magnitude
higher before the data throughput is affected.

dennis@home wrote:

On 29/04/2013 10:01, Andy Burns wrote:

hewhowalksamongus wrote:

The shorter the distance the faster the connection.

cable length is barely important at all

I would say its totally irrelevant

Yes, there are so many other factors that can delay the data (and none
that magically speed it up) together they all tend to dwarf cable length
(at the scale of a building).

dennis@home wrote:
On 29/04/2013 08:30, wrote:

I have a 50 metre or so length of cat5e which I'm sure isn't fully up to
standards, I crimped it myself to get the exact length I wanted and to
make it easier to thread the cable first. I has worked at 1000Mb/s ever
since I installed it.


Why wouldn't it be up to standards?

Because I'm not perfect! :-)


Didn't you use the correct wire or plugs?

As far as I know I did, however there are likely a number of minor issues
with it:-

I've probably untwisted too much at the terminations.

It's likely that there are bends less than the specified minimum
radius.

It's out in the open air with no extra protection (though the
terminations are indoors), it runs from the house to a garage
through some trees.

I've never been able to find plugs which specifically state that
they are for either solid or stranded conductors so it's quite
likely I have this wrong.

I suppose it would be cat 5 as 5e needs tests done but is the same if
both of them are done correctly.

Quite, however what I was pointing out is that I believe that cat5[e]
has quite a margin of 'performance' even when used at 1000Mb/s.

--
Chris Green

wrote:

I've never been able to find plugs which specifically state that
they are for either solid or stranded conductors so it's quite
likely I have this wrong.

Not so likely, you have to go out of your way to get plugs for solid cable.

On 29/04/2013 10:28, dennis@home wrote:

I would say its totally irrelevant as the sliding window for data and
acks, etc. allow for transmission delays several orders of magnitude
higher before the data throughput is affected.

I was going to say that... but then I checked. Gigabit is half duplex,
so the cable length (hence turn-round between sending a packet, running
out of window, and getting an ack) is real. Probably not significant though.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:

On 29/04/2013 10:28, dennis@home wrote:

I would say its totally irrelevant as the sliding window for data and
acks, etc. allow for transmission delays several orders of magnitude
higher before the data throughput is affected.

I was going to say that... but then I checked. Gigabit is half duplex

The spec allows negotiating half duplex if both ends agree, but lots[1]
of kit I've used only supports full duplex when using gigbit speed, both
ends send and receive concurrently on all 4 pairs (each end cancelling
what it's sending from what it sees on the cable to extract the other
end's signal).


[1] Cisco and Procurve switches certainly, Intel and Broadcom NICs too.