Hi All,

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re
the network cabling.

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And assuming he doesn't need loads, where would be the easiest
place for him to order / get it all from (cable and sockets etc)
please?

p.p.s. My house is still mainly the Cat3 I installed a long time ago
which was the 'in thing' over Cheapernet! ;-)

T i m wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

cat5e is good up to gigabit, but can't see him needing faster than
10/100 really, if he goes for cat6 the cable needs larger band radius
and is thicker, also outlets and patch panels may be more expensive.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

cat5e is good up to gigabit, but can't see him needing faster than
10/100 really, if he goes for cat6 the cable needs larger band radius
and is thicker, also outlets and patch panels may be more expensive.

And is less tolerant of being pulled and kinked during installation.
CAT5e will be fine but ensure it is copper not CCS or CCA. Might be
worth checking if the CCTV is going to use PoE IP cameras or coax and
twisted pair. Personally I'd be looking hard at IP based CCTV
solutions, there are some pretty highspec cameras out there for not
many pennies. Ones with on board recording, PIR detection, IR
illumination, 3 M pixel or more resolution.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 10:58:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

That's what I did. Of course I've had to do more wiring since, as 2 per point proved inadequate. I'll try not to make that mistake next time.


NT

On 27/01/16 12:52, wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 10:58:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

That's what I did. Of course I've had to do more wiring since, as 2 per point proved inadequate. I'll try not to make that mistake next time.


IME Don't really need to go much beyond four per point for normal
business users.

1. Printer
2. Desktop
3. Adhoc Laptop
4. Phone

However I once worked on an office build where 2 points were provided
for PCs and Phones. They'd forgotten each user had their own laser
printer which (due to the house system software) had to be installed
networked.

Opps.

--
Adrian C

On 27/01/2016 13:37, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

However I once worked on an office build where 2 points were provided
for PCs and Phones. They'd forgotten each user had their own laser
printer which (due to the house system software) had to be installed
networked.

To my mind, there's always a power supply at every data outlet and when
a 4 port Gigabit switch costs less than £20 there's little point in
running loads of extra wire. Far neater to have a single wire coming out
of the wall to a switch hidden behind something.

On 27/01/2016 10:55, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Personally I'd be looking hard at IP based CCTV solutions, there are
some pretty highspec cameras out there for not many pennies. Ones
with on board recording, PIR detection, IR illumination, 3 M pixel or
more resolution.


You have to make sure the lens is up to it.
Normal CCTV lenses are not going to give a good picture on a 3/5 Mpixel
sensor.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:55:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

What sort of money are we looking at for a 305m roll of solid copper
Cat5e please. I've seen all sorts of prices mentioned but I'm
interested what people in the know are *actually* paying?

cat5e is good up to gigabit, but can't see him needing faster than
10/100 really, if he goes for cat6 the cable needs larger band radius
and is thicker, also outlets and patch panels may be more expensive.

And is less tolerant of being pulled and kinked during installation.

And I know *I* would be careful doing that, I can't vouch for anyone
else.

CAT5e will be fine but ensure it is copper not CCS or CCA. Might be
worth checking if the CCTV is going to use PoE IP cameras or coax and
twisted pair.

In the other shop it's coax but it has been in there a while now.

Personally I'd be looking hard at IP based CCTV
solutions, there are some pretty highspec cameras out there for not
many pennies. Ones with on board recording, PIR detection, IR
illumination, 3 M pixel or more resolution.

Understood. I'm not advising on that side of it so out of my hands.
That said, if he is offered a choice he may well ask for my advice /
opinion but it's likely to come down to price and his perception of
value to him.

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 13:05:31 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:55:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

What sort of money are we looking at for a 305m roll of solid copper
Cat5e please. I've seen all sorts of prices mentioned but I'm
interested what people in the know are *actually* paying?

Our IT peolpe installed a lot of pretty purple cable last year.
http://www.rapidonline.com/Cabling/C...TP-305m-558767


unlikely to have ordered it from above probbley went to RS where prices can be over £230 for 105M

In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 13:05:31 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:55:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

What sort of money are we looking at for a 305m roll of solid copper
Cat5e please. I've seen all sorts of prices mentioned but I'm
interested what people in the know are *actually* paying?

Our IT peolpe installed a lot of pretty purple cable last year.
http://www.rapidonline.com/Cabling/C...sted-Pair-UTP-
305m-558767


unlikely to have ordered it from above probbley went to RS where prices can be
over £230 for 105M



I think that Purple one is fire retardent or resistant=...
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:32:45 +0000, T i m wrote:

Hi All,

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me what
he should do about running network points around the shop.

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re the
network cabling.

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web browsing,
possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV so would
Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward to use and
more 'future proof please?

FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And assuming he doesn't need loads, where would be the easiest
place for him to order / get it all from (cable and sockets etc) please?

p.p.s. My house is still mainly the Cat3 I installed a long time ago
which was the 'in thing' over Cheapernet! ;-)

I would go Cat6 just because of the higher theoretical bandwidth and the
fact that the cost of installation is likely to be far higher than the
cost of the cable and the sockets so you might as well put in the "latest
greatest" for future proofing.

I think the usual suspects such as CPC stock everything needed.

HTH

Dave R

--
Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:
Hi All,

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re
the network cabling.

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And assuming he doesn't need loads, where would be the easiest
place for him to order / get it all from (cable and sockets etc)
please?

p.p.s. My house is still mainly the Cat3 I installed a long time ago
which was the 'in thing' over Cheapernet! ;-)

His present requirements may well be covered by Cat5ebut as the main
cost is in the installation rather than the hardware, why not future proof

Malcolm

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 15:22:22 UTC, Malcolm Race wrote:
On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:
Hi All,

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re
the network cabling.

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And assuming he doesn't need loads, where would be the easiest
place for him to order / get it all from (cable and sockets etc)
please?

p.p.s. My house is still mainly the Cat3 I installed a long time ago
which was the 'in thing' over Cheapernet! ;-)

His present requirements may well be covered by Cat5ebut as the main
cost is in the installation rather than the hardware, why not future proof

Malcolm

Maybe not everyone will live into the future.
For most things I can use wireless as I assume most can.
Sure if I regually transfer GB of files I'd go for hardwire.
if you gonna truely future proof don't use enthernet cable
of any kind use fibra optic cable.

whisky-dave wrote:

if you gonna truely future proof don't use enthernet cable
of any kind use fibra optic cable.

If you do that, you'll spend a fortune on fibre capable switches, SFPs,
and NICs or media converters ... unless there's an identified need for
10 gigabit speed (and I'd be amazed if the owner was just asking a mate
if there were) I'd stick with cat5e.

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 16:12:37 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

if you gonna truely future proof don't use enthernet cable
of any kind use fibra optic cable.

If you do that, you'll spend a fortune on fibre capable switches, SFPs,
and NICs or media converters ... unless there's an identified need for
10 gigabit speed (and I'd be amazed if the owner was just asking a mate
if there were) I'd stick with cat5e.

I would too I wouldn't bother with cat6, but then again I wouldn't bother with cat5e either. Unless I know I rely need fast speed or was planing on playing games I'd use wireless throughout.
Brought one of these TP link things to go into another room. How many people need 1GB or even 500MB ?

Maybe I'll wait until quantum cat cables come about.

On 26/01/2016 16:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 16:12:37 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

if you gonna truely future proof don't use enthernet cable of any
kind use fibra optic cable.

If you do that, you'll spend a fortune on fibre capable switches,
SFPs, and NICs or media converters ... unless there's an identified
need for 10 gigabit speed (and I'd be amazed if the owner was just
asking a mate if there were) I'd stick with cat5e.

I would too I wouldn't bother with cat6, but then again I wouldn't
bother with cat5e either. Unless I know I rely need fast speed or was
planing on playing games I'd use wireless throughout. Brought one of
these TP link things to go into another room. How many people need
1GB or even 500MB ?

I would say for domestic stuff pretty much everyone. There is no real
cost disadvantage going with 1G ethernet, and it will be standard on any
PC less than say 5 years old. For small business use, in some cases its
less important, but there is still no point not.

In many cases Wireless is a right PITA (patchy coverage, drop outs, slow
downs at peak times when all the neighbours are making heavy use of it
etc).

10/100 is not always fast enough if you are doing much streaming of
video content over a home network, it also can't keep pace with the data
serving rate from even a basic NAS box. Lastly if you do need to move
bulk data (say a 5GB image of a DVD), then you really notice the
difference in transfer rate.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:33:48 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 16:12:37 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

if you gonna truely future proof don't use enthernet cable
of any kind use fibra optic cable.

If you do that, you'll spend a fortune on fibre capable switches, SFPs,
and NICs or media converters ... unless there's an identified need for
10 gigabit speed (and I'd be amazed if the owner was just asking a mate
if there were) I'd stick with cat5e.

I would too I wouldn't bother with cat6, but then again I wouldn't bother with cat5e either. Unless I know I rely need fast speed or was planing on playing games I'd use wireless throughout.
Brought one of these TP link things to go into another room. How many people need 1GB or even 500MB ?

Maybe I'll wait until quantum cat cables come about.

Now you've given a certain purveyor of Very Expensive Cables the idea, start
saving!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 15:22:22 UTC, Malcolm Race wrote:
His present requirements may well be covered by Cat5ebut as the main
cost is in the installation rather than the hardware, why not future proof

because in 5-10 years time the shop could be used for a completely different purpose and be refitted accordingly

Purpose built offices tend to stay purpose built offices

Owain

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:
Hi All,

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re
the network cabling.

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

CAT5e will be adequate for most applications for some time to come. If
well cabled you can get 10Gig ethernet down it although with length
limitations (probably no more than 40m). Having said that 10G ethernet
does not seem popular yet, is still pricey and very power hungry.

CAT6 is more expensive, harder to work with etc, and is unlikely to buy
much advantage in this application.

FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

Stick in more cables than he needs - even if they are not all terminated
up to start with. Always run at least a pair of cables to any one point.

p.s. And assuming he doesn't need loads, where would be the easiest
place for him to order / get it all from (cable and sockets etc)
please?

These folks are good:

http://www.comms-express.com/

Failing that TLC have a small range of network stuff.

Get the Excel branded patch panels and CAT5 full depth modules (needs
the bevelled edge face plate for depth) - they are a little bit more
expensive than budget ones, but so much nice and faster to wire.

http://www.comms-express.com/product...ttered-module/

(from simple things like being marked with only the TIA-568B colour
coding, so you are not always stopping to think which set of colours you
are matching, to the more subtle like the way the CAT5 wires push into
the terminals with a nice positive feel and stay put before punching down).

Make sure you order proper copper CAT5e and not CCA or CCS.

p.p.s. My house is still mainly the Cat3 I installed a long time ago
which was the 'in thing' over Cheapernet! ;-)

Handy for pulling through some CAT5e ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:32:45 +0000, T i m wrote:

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re
the network cabling.

Almost anything but NOT cable labelled CCA or CCS (Copper Coated
Aluminium, Copper Coated Steel). The electrician will probably go
for one of these as they are the cheapest but either are likely to
cause problems in the future.

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:
Hi All,

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

He electrician is going to do it but I'm not sure what to advise re
the network cabling.

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And assuming he doesn't need loads, where would be the easiest
place for him to order / get it all from (cable and sockets etc)
please?

p.p.s. My house is still mainly the Cat3 I installed a long time ago
which was the 'in thing' over Cheapernet! ;-)

Stick in branded Cat 6 Cable such as Excel, if the runs are only 20m,
one 305m box of Cat6 Wont be much cheaper than Cat5e.

If he is worried about cost, then terminate it with Cat5e Outlets and
Patch Panels, else use Cat6 Accessories. At least then the
infrastructure is in place.

Cat 5e will give Gb speed and Cat 6 will give 10Gb up to 40m between
Switch and Outlet.

Don't bother with fibre, it is expensive to terminate and so is the kit
you need to get it working.

I would say a properly installed Branded Cat5e solution installed and
certified with a proper tester, by a qualified engineer, will be better
than some no brand Cat6 Cable, stuck in by a Sparky, who then at most
will do a quick wire map check on the cabling.

--
Eednud

On 26/01/2016 19:56, Eednud wrote:

Cat 5e will give Gb speed and Cat 6 will give 10Gb up to 40m between
Switch and Outlet.

IIRC, CAT5e should do 10G up to 40m, and 100m for CAT6

Don't bother with fibre, it is expensive to terminate and so is the kit
you need to get it working.

I would say a properly installed Branded Cat5e solution installed and
certified with a proper tester, by a qualified engineer, will be better
than some no brand Cat6 Cable, stuck in by a Sparky, who then at most
will do a quick wire map check on the cabling.

True, but if all the sparky is doing is pulling the wires in, then it
should still be a workable install.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 26/01/2016 20:16, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/01/2016 19:56, Eednud wrote:

Cat 5e will give Gb speed and Cat 6 will give 10Gb up to 40m between
Switch and Outlet.

IIRC, CAT5e should do 10G up to 40m, and 100m for CAT6

That is incorrect. Cat 5e is only certified to 1Gb.

If Cat6 does 10Gb up to 100m, then what speeds do you think you get with
Cat6A?




--
Eednud

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:35:55 +0000, Eednud wrote:

Cat 5e will give Gb speed and Cat 6 will give 10Gb up to 40m between
Switch and Outlet.

IIRC, CAT5e should do 10G up to 40m, and 100m for CAT6

That is incorrect. Cat 5e is only certified to 1Gb.

If Cat6 does 10Gb up to 100m, then what speeds do you think you get with
Cat6A?

Can I just ask a stupid question here...

While there are times and places where the difference between 10Gb and
100Gb and 40m or 100m are relevant, is this even vaguely one of them?

Just to go back to the original question...

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop
....
He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
....
FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:41:24 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:35:55 +0000, Eednud wrote:

Cat 5e will give Gb speed and Cat 6 will give 10Gb up to 40m between
Switch and Outlet.

IIRC, CAT5e should do 10G up to 40m, and 100m for CAT6

That is incorrect. Cat 5e is only certified to 1Gb.

If Cat6 does 10Gb up to 100m, then what speeds do you think you get with
Cat6A?

Can I just ask a stupid question here...

While there are times and places where the difference between 10Gb and
100Gb and 40m or 100m are relevant, is this even vaguely one of them?

Just to go back to the original question...

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop
...
He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
...
FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).


Thanks for the reality check Adrian. ;-)

Yes, whilst I agree there may be a time when people often need 'more
speed', I can't see this particular installation being one of them.
So, I think it makes sense (to me anyway) to stick with the more
bread_and_butter range of kit as I can't see anything better being
appreciated. I'm also sure that any complication, cost or delay that
could be avoided by going for a more 'common' solution wouldn't be
appreciated either.

Anyway, loads of interesting thoughts and useful information as usual
so thanks to all who replied. ;-)

'Muggins' will probably be the one connecting it all up but I don't
mind as I (still) enjoy that sort of thing (and it will save my Krone
tool from going rusty).

Depending on the number of 'ends' they need (and I like the idea of
'doubling up' on any cable runs) we might use a small patch panel at
the router end and if not, just a few double RJ45 sockets.

All he needs (for the sparks who also does his CCTV stuff so isn't a
complete stranger to running 'other' cables) is the actual UTP cable
and so I'll make sure they get full fat copper. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 26/01/2016 20:41, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:35:55 +0000, Eednud wrote:

Can I just ask a stupid question here...

While there are times and places where the difference between 10Gb and
100Gb and 40m or 100m are relevant, is this even vaguely one of them?

Since some people have suggested installing CAT6 and above, it is
perhaps important to highlight what extra that will achieve. Hopefully
most will see the answer (from the OPs stated requirements) ought to be
"none".

In a domestic environment, I would not bother with CAT6 or above for
data applications, however it does have a use with a balun either end,
re-purposed to run HD video over it where the better cable will give
longer distances:

http://cpc.farnell.com/webapp/wcs/st...owResults=true


Just to go back to the original question...

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop
...
He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
...
FWIW, maximum run from router / switch to socket will be about 20m (as
the cable runs).


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 26/01/2016 20:35, Eednud wrote:
On 26/01/2016 20:16, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/01/2016 19:56, Eednud wrote:

Cat 5e will give Gb speed and Cat 6 will give 10Gb up to 40m between
Switch and Outlet.

IIRC, CAT5e should do 10G up to 40m, and 100m for CAT6

That is incorrect. Cat 5e is only certified to 1Gb.

I made no mention of what its certified to do, only what it achieves in
actual testing. Indeed the bandwidth requirement (500MHz) is well beyond
CAT5E official specs at 100MHz. However certified CAT5E must perform
better than the minimum spec to pass certification, so there is some
headroom. If you trade that off against maximum segment length, then you
will arrive at a very restricted length below which 10G will run over
*some* CAT5E segments.

e.g.

http://www.universalnetworks.co.uk/b...un-over-cat5e/

If Cat6 does 10Gb up to 100m, then what speeds do you think you get with
Cat6A?

To be fair I was being sloppy, and lumping all cat6 variants together.
You will need 6A for the full 100m. CAT6 will perform better than CAT5E
but not dramatically so. However since I have no experience using CAT6
in practice, I can't tell you what can be squeezed out of it. Reports I
have read suggest that 60m is the top end of what is realistic.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

I've just extended my network to the garage so I can put a NAS box out
of sight of anyone with sticky fingers. I'm usually shifting large
backup files so, for the difference in cost, there was little point in
not using Cat 6.

--
F

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:45:08 +0000, F news@nowhere wrote:

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

I've just extended my network to the garage so I can put a NAS box out
of sight of anyone with sticky fingers.

Ok, and house fires.

I'm usually shifting large
backup files so, for the difference in cost, there was little point in
not using Cat 6.

Fair enough.

When I upgraded my switch from 100M to Gb, I monitored the network
usage and the general time taken to do stuff. Given that the ends were
Gb and the cables short and able to support such, I can't say I really
saw much difference in the overall throughput, suggesting any
bottlenecks were elsewhere (like HDD access etc).

I think I looked into it and think I remember the use of a higher
performance NIC in the server, the basic 'on board' solutions weren't
typically very efficient?

Cheers, T i m

On 27/01/2016 13:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:45:08 +0000, F news@nowhere wrote:

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

I've just extended my network to the garage so I can put a NAS box out
of sight of anyone with sticky fingers.

Ok, and house fires.

I'm usually shifting large
backup files so, for the difference in cost, there was little point in
not using Cat 6.

Fair enough.

When I upgraded my switch from 100M to Gb, I monitored the network
usage and the general time taken to do stuff. Given that the ends were
Gb and the cables short and able to support such, I can't say I really
saw much difference in the overall throughput, suggesting any
bottlenecks were elsewhere (like HDD access etc).

I think I looked into it and think I remember the use of a higher
performance NIC in the server, the basic 'on board' solutions weren't
typically very efficient?

Pushing a 50GB file across the 25M of Cat 6 to the Proliant G8 server in
the garage I get a transfer speed of ~600Mbps.

--
F

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:28:05 +0000, F news@nowhere wrote:

snip

When I upgraded my switch from 100M to Gb, I monitored the network
usage and the general time taken to do stuff. Given that the ends were
Gb and the cables short and able to support such, I can't say I really
saw much difference in the overall throughput, suggesting any
bottlenecks were elsewhere (like HDD access etc).

I think I looked into it and think I remember the use of a higher
performance NIC in the server, the basic 'on board' solutions weren't
typically very efficient?

Pushing a 50GB file across the 25M of Cat 6 to the Proliant G8 server in
the garage I get a transfer speed of ~600Mbps.

I'll have to test mine but being yours is a 'real' server (focused on
i/o and not economy like mine) is likely to be much better an ant
generic PC hardware running as a server.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:10:41 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:28:05 +0000, F news@nowhere wrote:

snip

When I upgraded my switch from 100M to Gb, I monitored the network
usage and the general time taken to do stuff. Given that the ends were
Gb and the cables short and able to support such, I can't say I really
saw much difference in the overall throughput, suggesting any
bottlenecks were elsewhere (like HDD access etc).

I think I looked into it and think I remember the use of a higher
performance NIC in the server, the basic 'on board' solutions weren't
typically very efficient?

Pushing a 50GB file across the 25M of Cat 6 to the Proliant G8 server in
the garage I get a transfer speed of ~600Mbps.

I'll have to test mine but being yours is a 'real' server (focused on
i/o and not economy like mine) is likely to be much better an ant
generic PC hardware running as a server.


That won't necessarily be true. For several years, I tried just about
every trick I could to get the data transfer rates between my NAS4Free
box and my win2k desktop machine (connected via 2 or 3 metres worth of
CAT5 in total using an 8 port Netgear GBit switch above 60MB/s (circa
500Mbps). Both machines were using 2010 vintage MoBos with built in GBit
lan ports and dual core CPUs.

The CrystalDiskMark results were interesting in that sustained large
sequential transfer rates hovered around the 75MB/s mark for any of the
four disks in the NAS box (mapped to local drive letters) almost without
regard to any real world stop watch timed benchmarked improvements I was
able to make.

The biggest improvement arose out of replacing the single core Semperon
in the NAS box with a dual core Athlon 64 chip (I was already using a
dual core 3.1GHz Phenom in the desktop PC) along with enabling the "Cool
'n' Quiet" feature and allowing N4F's excellent power management to work
its magic (I'd initially disabled this feature and slightly underclocked
and undervolted the Semperon to keep the power consumption down - it
turned out that by allowing N4F's power management to function, I was
able to achieve the same power saving - that is for the 99.9% of the time
it was just idling).

Eventually, I raised the write speed (from desktop to NAS) to a dizzying
64MB/s and the read speed to a more modest 58MB/s (I never did figure why
the write performance was so notably better than the write performance -
just one of life's many mysteries I guess). I did see an improvement
early on when using jumbo frame working until jumbo frames became
deprecated to the point of no longer being supported by the FreeBSD devs
not long after that last hardware upgrade back around 2010.

Nearly two years ago now, I had an opportunity to benchmark using a
customer's win7 desktop machine which had a decent specification. This
was a real eye opener! The connection still used the same 8 port Gbit
switch, only the cat5 segment to the workbench involved an extra 10 or 15
metres of cable. Testing using 10GB's worth of large media files (500GB
to 2000GB in size) showed an average speed of circa 85MB/s each way using
stopwatch timings. Even more revealing was the fact that before the disk
ram caches filled up, the win7 PC reported 120 odd MB/s transfer rates
for the 2 or 3 seconds it took before the disk transfer rates throttled
it back to the 85 to 90 MB/s mark.

I didn't bother changing the CIFS/SMB protocol from type 1 (optimised
for win2k / XP) to type 2 (optimised for win7 / 8). Seeing it reach so
close to the theoretical max of 125MB/s before hitting the disk i/o limit
of 85MB/s made such a test moot.

It turned out that the 64MB/s writing speed limit I'd been trying to
improve upon for the previous 3 years or so had been nothing to do with
the NAS box and everything to do with limitations in win2k's networking
driver code. Believe me, I lost count of the number of 'tuning sessions'
I'd tried to improve networking performance (it wasn't a hardware issue -
the desktop hardware had an even higher spec than the NAS box).

Having tested with a decently specced win7 box, I could rest assured
that the NAS4Free box was quite capable of maxing out the Gigabit link
and not in need of any further network performance tuning. It's also
worth remembering that the micro ATX SATA 2 MoBo (now some six years old)
used in the NAS was nothing special (other than having a built in Gbit
LAN port). Plus, it's also worth keeping in mind that CIFS/SMB
performance in BSD blows Linux into the weeds (at least twice as fast
compared to using a Linux based NAS box - and the same applies the other
way round when Linux is running as a client machine).


--
Johnny B Good

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

to my mind Cat5 is going to be around for a very long time.
There must be millions of miles of the stuff in commercial buildings.

A bit like copper telephone wires to the house, signal technology will
always evolve for the most popular medium. Slowest annoyance will be the
upstream from his internet connection. It's going to be a fair while
before an upstream of 100Mbps becomes commonplace let alone Gbps.

For me, Cat6 is nothing more than a way of fudging around a slight
improvement to existing signal technology. It's a stop-gap between major
technology advances.... e.g. Li-Fi completely new technology not reliant
on outdated transfer mediums.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:18:03 +0000, "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
wrote:

On 26/01/2016 11:32, T i m wrote:

He doesn't need much bandwidth as it will only be a bit of web
browsing, possibly some cloud based POS and remote access to his CCTV
so would Cat5e still be ok or should is Cat6 as easy / straightforward
to use and more 'future proof please?

to my mind Cat5 is going to be around for a very long time.
There must be millions of miles of the stuff in commercial buildings.

Agreed.

A bit like copper telephone wires to the house, signal technology will
always evolve for the most popular medium. Slowest annoyance will be the
upstream from his internet connection. It's going to be a fair while
before an upstream of 100Mbps becomes commonplace let alone Gbps.

Yeah, I'm not sure what my mate has got at this new shop but it's BT
and possibly fibre (over copper into the actual shop etc).

That said, all he really needs the up bandwidth for is viewing his
CCTV remotely and that's often done on a phone in any case.

For me, Cat6 is nothing more than a way of fudging around a slight
improvement to existing signal technology. It's a stop-gap between major
technology advances....

Ok. I did slightly involved in the use of Cat6 when another mate had
HDTV plumbed in around the house and they carried the TV signal over
that (and some boxes both ends, the remote being PoE).

e.g. Li-Fi completely new technology not reliant
on outdated transfer mediums.



You are probably right, and as long as he does as suggested and ensure
any cables the sparks run are in conduit, he shouldn't be trapped. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:18:03 +0000, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

A bit like copper telephone wires to the house, signal technology will
always evolve for the most popular medium.

Remember in band dial up starting at 1200/75 or 300/300 and ending at
28,800/28,800 bps, then some one had the bright idea of going out of
band and asymetrical starts with a 1 or 2 Mbps downlink ends with up
to 24 Mbps. Then some one has the idea fo shifting the head end from
the exchange to a cabinet and now that (if some what shorter) bit of
copper is carrying up to 78 Mbps...

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 20:43:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:18:03 +0000, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

A bit like copper telephone wires to the house, signal technology will
always evolve for the most popular medium.

Remember in band dial up starting at 1200/75 or 300/300 and ending at
28,800/28,800 bps, then some one had the bright idea of going out of
band and asymetrical starts with a 1 or 2 Mbps downlink ends with up
to 24 Mbps. Then some one has the idea fo shifting the head end from
the exchange to a cabinet and now that (if some what shorter) bit of
copper is carrying up to 78 Mbps...

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

If there's one thing computing history teaches, it's that performance goes up far far more than people intuitively expect, and what seems wildly extravagant today is a basic necessity tomorrow, and resigned to the history bin as hopeless not long after.

I still remember drooling over 1200/75 and 10M networking.


NT

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:51:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet
connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps
becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

If there's one thing computing history teaches, it's that performance
goes up far far more than people intuitively expect, and what seems
wildly extravagant today is a basic necessity tomorrow, and resigned to
the history bin as hopeless not long after.

I still remember drooling over 1200/75 and 10M networking.

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's
ADSL2 "up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting
to feel "slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for
ADSL2+ or VDSL to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible
prices for FTTPoD ...

Before ADSL that we had ISDN, only ever used a single channel so a
massive 64 kbps and nice step up from dialup at 28.8 kbps or up to 56
kbps compressed. Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps? With sites that use 500 k bytes of
javascript just to display "hello world". As for streaming video or
even downloading, 1 G Byte (roughly the size of 1 hours HD iPlayer)
would take over 36 hours to download...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:25:08 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's ADSL2
"up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting to feel
"slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for ADSL2+ or VDSL
to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible prices for FTTPoD
...

We're wired direct to the exchange, a couple of miles and a large river
away. 2Mbit on a good day.

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:51:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet
connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps
becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

If there's one thing computing history teaches, it's that performance
goes up far far more than people intuitively expect, and what seems
wildly extravagant today is a basic necessity tomorrow, and resigned to
the history bin as hopeless not long after.

I still remember drooling over 1200/75 and 10M networking.

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's
ADSL2 "up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting
to feel "slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for
ADSL2+ or VDSL to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible
prices for FTTPoD ...

Before ADSL that we had ISDN, only ever used a single channel so a
massive 64 kbps and nice step up from dialup at 28.8 kbps or up to 56
kbps compressed. Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps? With sites that use 500 k bytes of
javascript just to display "hello world". As for streaming video or
even downloading, 1 G Byte (roughly the size of 1 hours HD iPlayer)
would take over 36 hours to download...

I can remember a Windows "upgrade" that took over 3 hours to download!

Use used to get about 2.5Mbps on ADSL, then came ADSL2+ which doubled that
- on a good day. I'm aqbout 2km from th exchange. In the autumn I went for
FTTC (which is about 100m away) 79Mbps!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:25:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

snip

Before ADSL that we had ISDN, only ever used a single channel so a
massive 64 kbps and nice step up from dialup at 28.8 kbps or up to 56
kbps compressed.

I think we had '2B+D' (was it?) that gave us 128k bps to provide a WAN
link for our Northern office. ;-)

Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps?

We (I) had a call from a customer using one of our StatMuxes over 64k
Kilostream links and she was questioning / complaining how long it
took to back up their 1GB worth of data. I offered to do the maths for
her ... 1G byte is ~10G bits, divide that by the speed of the link,
divide by 60 to get minutes and another 60 to get hours and that's the
*best* time you can get (remembering the 64K link was being shared by
other services). The time it actually took was just a bit more that
the theoretical time. She thanked me for the explanation and asked why
her consultant hadn't explain it to her. ;-)

With sites that use 500 k bytes of
javascript just to display "hello world". As for streaming video or
even downloading, 1 G Byte (roughly the size of 1 hours HD iPlayer)
would take over 36 hours to download...

Yes, it seems we haven't actually moved forward in some instances. I
was helping BIL with a 486 PC I built him years ago and he needed to
get a file off. The hard drive had stalled so I bump started that and
got his file off on floppy. It booted very fast (DOS 6.2 / Win 3.1)
and into Automenu. It was only a second to open Wordstar and less to
close it. In fact, everything was nearly instant!

I remember downloading Doom from The States over a modem link but it
was worth the wait ... playing a multiplayer game over our Co
(NetBIOS) network was amazing (in the day). ;-)

Cheers, T i m