Re: wired vs wireless network - Network

This is a discussion on Re: wired vs wireless network - Network ; Sam Carleton wrote: Sam: I would suggest that you replace the hub that currently exists with a hub. Then, run the cables that you have the way that you have after you check them to make certain that they are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: wired vs wireless network

  1. Re: wired vs wireless network

    Sam Carleton wrote:

    Sam:

    I would suggest that you replace the hub that currently exists with a
    hub. Then, run the cables that you have the way that you have after you
    check them to make certain that they are wired correctly. The specs
    for cat5 are that it is good for 100 meters. That is a little over 300
    feet.

    It almost sounds like the hub for some reason might be a bottle neck
    for your network as it is set up right now. It would suprise me if that was
    the case in a home though.

    Wait a second! The hub is very possibly the cause. Is the hub a
    100baseT hub or is it a 10baseT? If one of the ports is pulled to 10BaseT
    speed do all the other ports on the hub slow down? If this happens then
    that could cause a bottle neck on that part of the network.

    I have a switch in the basement that will let each port be either
    10baseT or 100baseT without interfering with the speed of the other ports.
    It really is nice to have that flexibility.

    Check those things and get back to the newsgroup. Let us know what
    you find out.

    Al Butler
    ka0ies

  2. Re: wired vs wireless network

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 at 05:20 GMT, Allan Butler wrote:
    > Sam Carleton wrote:
    >
    > Sam:
    >
    > I would suggest that you replace the hub that currently exists with a
    > hub. Then, run the cables that you have the way that you have after you
    > check them to make certain that they are wired correctly. The specs
    > for cat5 are that it is good for 100 meters. That is a little over 300
    > feet.
    >
    > It almost sounds like the hub for some reason might be a bottle neck
    > for your network as it is set up right now. It would suprise me if that was
    > the case in a home though.


    I could see that It was put together with cheap stuff

    > Wait a second! The hub is very possibly the cause. Is the hub a
    > 100baseT hub or is it a 10baseT? If one of the ports is pulled to 10BaseT
    > speed do all the other ports on the hub slow down? If this happens then
    > that could cause a bottle neck on that part of the network.


    My whole setup is cheap, cheap, cheap. Recall my setup, servers and
    my workstation in the basement hooked together with a cheap Netgear
    10/100baseT switch. That goes to the HUB. What I failed to mention
    is that there are two HUB's. One HUB is 10baseT and the other
    100baseT. It does seem that once the 100baseT HUB is hooked to the
    switch, the switch sees it only as 100baseT and 10baseT cannot
    communicate through that HUB to the switch, so I added a second
    10baseT hub for things like my network printer.

    > I have a switch in the basement that will let each port be either
    > 10baseT or 100baseT without interfering with the speed of the other ports.
    > It really is nice to have that flexibility.


    I am considering consolidating everything down to one switch. I
    need at least 16 ports, I figure 24 to have room to grow. I would
    also like to have two gigabit ports, one for MY workstation and one
    for the main file server. I am considering the "Netgear Model FS526T
    24-port Smart Switch" right now, unless folks have a recommendation
    for a better unit.

    Sam


+ Reply to Thread