| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 97440 | 2009-02-16 01:15:00 | 80m network cable for sharing broadband - will it work? | element16 (14623) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 748298 | 2009-02-16 01:15:00 | My dad wants to save money by sharing his home office broadband with the house computers, but to do so will require at least 80m of cat5e/cat6 patch cable to run between his router and our network switch. Will there be any speed/delay/signal problems with running this long a cable, or should it be fine? |
element16 (14623) | ||
| 748299 | 2009-02-16 01:21:00 | Should be fine, provided there's nothing along the cable length that emits EMF - 80m is about the maximum practical length you can go without packet loss. A cheap, effective way to boost this is to get a really basic data switch, and put this at the end of the 80m cable to boost the signal before kicking it along down another cable. HTH! :thumbs: |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 748300 | 2009-02-16 01:33:00 | Thanks! Is the data switch you're referring to the same thing as a network switch/hub? If so, we've got powered hubs at both ends, because the router in my dad's office is a combination ADSL 2+ router and hub. Also, how many computers can you have running off one broadband connection without slowing it down to archaic speeds? We'll probably have at least 3 (up to 5 every so often) PCs using this connection at a time. |
element16 (14623) | ||
| 748301 | 2009-02-16 01:36:00 | Surfing/emailing 100+ Downloading 1 |
Rob99 (151) | ||
| 748302 | 2009-02-16 01:40:00 | Bear in mind that the better majority of the time you're "online" your PC is actually sitting idle, such as when you're reading a page, or email. We have a rather large home LAN, with a solid 20+ devices connected at any given time. Speeds are pretty much always good until somebody uploads, because we're on a limited-upload plan that really kills us :P As a general rule of thumb, if you're doing a home or small office network, chances are unless you're downloading large files, you'll never "slow" down ... Unless you're all watching YouTube or videos that is ;) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 748303 | 2009-02-16 01:49:00 | The max length any run of CAT5e/CAT6 can be is 90M including any patch leads from wall jack to network adapter. You can go longer but then the cable is not guarenteed to perform to the CAT5e/CAT6 standard any more. If you are just running between router & switch then 80M won't be a problem. But as already stated, keep it at least 30cm away from any power cables. If you have to cross power cables do it at right-angles. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 748304 | 2009-02-16 02:11:00 | ok, 2 different lengths, I'll add a 3rd. The official CAT5 standard was 100Mb for 100metres. Then the Gigabit ethernet standard was designed to use the same cables and run the same distance - 100M. CAT5e and CAT6 cabling are improvements to the cable design to improve noise rejection and loss, but actually aren't rated to run any faster or further than bog standard CAT5. Different manufactures add their reccomendations, but my point is the standard is 100M not 80 or 90 so you would be fine. The max length is between powered devices such as router / switches / PC's. It starts again any time you pass through one of these. At that sort of long length you need to take care the cable is not kinked or compressed and does not turn any sharp corners, I think the bend radius was 50mm but it's been a while so I may be wrong. Also for CAT 5e and above you can't put your own connectors on or the rating is immediately lost so it would have to be a factory made cable to qualify. All this aside - generally it works even when people ignore the standards and string any old CAT5 cable around the place with little regard to standard practices. For an example I have a 25M patchcord made out of telephone extension cable with only 4 wires in it. Works flawlessly at 100m ( gigabit needs 8 wires so it doesn't work ), wouldn't reccomend it though was just a LAN party stopgap. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 748305 | 2009-02-16 02:26:00 | ok, 2 different lengths, I'll add a 3rd. The official CAT5 standard was 100Mb for 100metres. Then the Gigabit ethernet standard was designed to use the same cables and run the same distance - 100M. CAT5e and CAT6 cabling are improvements to the cable design to improve noise rejection and loss, but actually aren't rated to run any faster or further than bog standard CAT5. Different manufactures add their reccomendations, but my point is the standard is 100M not 80 or 90 so you would be fine. The max length is between powered devices such as router / switches / PC's. It starts again any time you pass through one of these. At that sort of long length you need to take care the cable is not kinked or compressed and does not turn any sharp corners, I think the bend radius was 50mm but it's been a while so I may be wrong. Also for CAT 5e and above you can't put your own connectors on or the rating is immediately lost so it would have to be a factory made cable to qualify. All this aside - generally it works even when people ignore the standards and string any old CAT5 cable around the place with little regard to standard practices. For an example I have a 25M patchcord made out of telephone extension cable with only 4 wires in it. Works flawlessly at 100m ( gigabit needs 8 wires so it doesn't work ), wouldn't reccomend it though was just a LAN party stopgap. I''ll add some more to this :D 90M is generally refered to as the max horizontal length. The max is 100M but this includes any vertical drops and any passive links such as the patch cable from the wall jack to the network adapter. I always say 90M is the max length as this allows for a longer patch cable from the wall jack to the network device and at the patch panel to the switch (if required) If you had your max limit of 100M with a 2M patch cable and then someone comes along and moves the PC and puts in a 10M patch cable then you could have problems. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 748306 | 2009-02-16 06:05:00 | I was under the impression that Cat5e and Cat6 did Gigabit, not the 100M as stated in a previous post? | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 748307 | 2009-02-16 07:24:00 | I was under the impression that Cat5e and Cat6 did Gigabit, not the 100M as stated in a previous post? I think you are right - see en.wikipedia.org for example. |
johnd (85) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||