Simple gigabit questions...

[jsedlak]

I am a total noob when it comes to networking and having to sort through all the various devices and the hundreds of standards they support (or don't... or might) is confusing to say the least. I am looking into (re)building a network to support gigabit ethernet and have a few questions. I apologize beforehand for the stupidity of some of these questions... I am sure some of them are real obvious.

Can I use a Cat-6 cable in a Cat-5/5e port? - It seems that C6 is a better control of the line than C5/5e and not a new/different standard...

Are the 802 standards backwards compatible? Ie, if I have a router that puts out 802.3u, can I use an 802.3ab adapter? Or do I need one that specifically supports 802.3u?

Is there a benefit to having all of the same - for example all devices supporting 802.3ab?

Can 10/100 machines and 10/100/1000 machines exist on the same network switch without dropping the speed of the 10/100/1000 box to just 10/100?

Is there anything I need to watch out for in terms of another device that can disrupt the line? Right now our network runs right past a washing machine, dryer and other electronic devices.

Right now I am looking at the following but am not set on buying them. Any ideas about what to get would be appreciated as well.

Router -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Switch -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833156251

Adapters -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833106114
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833106123

Thanks!

 

[bobdole369]

Cat 5/5e/6/6a/7 are the same physical connections. As you go up in Cat, the actual line supports higher frequencies and is more resistant to noise.

802.3u describes basically 10/100 and 802.3ab is gigabit.

Provided you are using a "switch" vs a "hub" - (hubs are actually very uncommon these days) - The machines with gigabit cards talk to the network at gigabit speeds, those with 10/100's talk to the network at up to 100mbit. If you have 2 devices with gigabit cards, connected to a gigabit switch, those 2 computers talk and transfer at gigabit speeds. You can have a pc with a 10/100 card next to it talking to one of the gigabit computers simultaneously, but this pc will only talk at 10/100 speed. You can't bring down the speed with a client connection.

No generally speaking CAT5+ is impervious to most things folks can throw at it. Maybe if you wrap the feedline of a 100W transmitter around it that could be an issue, but you won't be able to break it with your washing machine. Just try to keep it away from the power cords.

It only makes sense to run either CAT5e (which will support gbit for the runs you are likely to have), or CAT6A for 10gigabit. Cat 5 or 6 or 7 (plain jane) aren't economically advisable and gain the typical user nothing.

 

[jsedlak]

Thanks for the help!

You say that 802.3u doesn't support gigabit speeds, but why does this router not list anything else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Even the D-Link site suggests 10/100/1000 support but does not list anything but 802.3/3u.

 

[bobdole369]

Becasue I'm probably wrong on the standard Not good with numbers/letters lol.

 

[imagoon]

Originally posted by: jsedlak
Thanks for the help!

You say that 802.3u doesn't support gigabit speeds, but why does this router not list anything else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Even the D-Link site suggests 10/100/1000 support but does not list anything but 802.3/3u.

This in not "atypical." The actual specs are most likely buried in some engineering document. What you see on the website is closer to a marketing gimmick. 802.3 (no letter) indicates thicknet. Definitely no connector for a vampire tap on that thing.

 

[jsedlak]

Originally posted by: imagoon

Originally posted by: jsedlak
Thanks for the help!

You say that 802.3u doesn't support gigabit speeds, but why does this router not list anything else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Even the D-Link site suggests 10/100/1000 support but does not list anything but 802.3/3u.

802.3 (no letter) indicates thicknet. Definitely no connector for a vampire tap on that thing.

Ok, this time in noobified-English?

What you are saying is it doesn't actually support gigabit?

bobdole369 - According to wikipedia, you were correct I think... 3u is 10/100 and 3ab is 10/100/1000.

And the more I look at the adapters the more I see 802.3ab listed for all 10/100/1000 devices.

Ugh.

So what router then?

 

[imagoon]

Originally posted by: jsedlak

Originally posted by: imagoon

Originally posted by: jsedlak
Thanks for the help!

You say that 802.3u doesn't support gigabit speeds, but why does this router not list anything else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Even the D-Link site suggests 10/100/1000 support but does not list anything but 802.3/3u.

802.3 (no letter) indicates thicknet. Definitely no connector for a vampire tap on that thing.

Ok, this time in noobified-English?

What you are saying is it doesn't actually support gigabit?

bobdole369 - According to wikipedia, you were correct I think... 3u is 10/100 and 3ab is 10/100/1000.

And the more I look at the adapters the more I see 802.3ab listed for all 10/100/1000 devices.

Ugh.

So what router then?

No. We are both saying that the marketing material incorrectly states the specifications. That is no surprise to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_tap

Thicknet is a very large coax cable that was one of the first versions of "ethernet." "802" is the IEEE ID for networks > "802.3" is "ethernet." 802.3 used to mean thicknet as listed above in the early 1980s. Now 802.3(some letter) indicates what it supports.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jsedlak

Originally posted by: imagoon

Originally posted by: jsedlak
Thanks for the help!

You say that 802.3u doesn't support gigabit speeds, but why does this router not list anything else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Even the D-Link site suggests 10/100/1000 support but does not list anything but 802.3/3u.

802.3 (no letter) indicates thicknet. Definitely no connector for a vampire tap on that thing.

Ok, this time in noobified-English?

What you are saying is it doesn't actually support gigabit?

bobdole369 - According to wikipedia, you were correct I think... 3u is 10/100 and 3ab is 10/100/1000.

And the more I look at the adapters the more I see 802.3ab listed for all 10/100/1000 devices.

Ugh.

So what router then?

Yes, according to wikipedia 3u=10/100 and 3ab=10/100/1000 (I know ab is gigabit for sure, and u I believe is 10/100 IIRC).

You have two options for a gigabit network. Both options will be limited to 10/100 speeds at your modem (unless you can find a modem that's gigabit which AFAIK aren't available in consumer markets), and mean it's only going to be only LAN stuff that will be gigabit.

First option: Get a cheaper WIFI router with wireless (insert whatever spec you want A, B, G, N) assuming you want WIFI as well, and a gigabit switch. Connect the gigabit switch uplink to an open port on the routers built in switch. I personally prefer this option. Example router, and gigabit switch. This setup will be the cheaper route most likely.

Second option: Get a more expensive WIFI router that has a built in gigabit switch. If you need more ports, just buy a gigabit switch and you can expand your available ports. Example of gigabit router

 

[JackMDS]

The End-Users consumer?s Networking market turned into a big Trap where there is No adhering to rigorous standards, and the marketing people take the same courses that the Credit Card people do, learning how to lie to the Max. While trying to avoid common Legal troubles.

Since you declare yourself as Noob may be you want to take the Functional Route.

I.e. explain what your network is going to look like and used for.

In most cases a decent Wireless Router, like the Asus that liked above, or this
Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833162134

Combined with the TrendNet Giga switch that you linked to, you would get very Good Wireless, plus Internet, and Giga LAN Traffic between the computers.

The TrendNet would provide you with 7 port to connect computers to (One port get lost on the connection to the Router).

If you do not have more than 7 Giga capable computers there is No reason to buy any "lame" switch that is included in the expensive Wireless Router.

----------------
P.S. I do not know why you linked to the $119 Intel NIC, given your posts it is totally useless for you.

 

[jsedlak]

Wireless is not a requirement in the router and in fact I rather get one with out it. Where the router will be situated is just not optimal for placing a wireless enabled device. We currently have an N router that barely connects at the other end of the house and frequently cuts out or slows down. Note that this was only a temporary fix because the wireless router we had died and the main router we had was dropping HTTP connections at peak hours.

Anyways... the number of devices on the network at peak is somewhere around 15-20 machines of various types (360s, ReplayTV, laptops, desktops, servers, etc). But I want to add no less than 4 servers to this that will handle video streaming, databases, backups, http server, AD/DNS, and TFS among other duties. On top of that, we are always pushing and pulling large amounts of photos (each JPEG can be 12mb or more) through the network as we enjoy sharing the shots we take.

As for the NIC I linked, I was just linking to some random samples. I obviously don't know enough yet to make a purchase.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: jsedlak
the number of devices on the network at peak is somewhere around 15-20 machines of various types

Why did you link a budget 8-port gigabit switch if you have so many devices? I'd suggest getting a biggish gigabit switch which would let you connect as many devices as you could to start directly, and filling in the gaps with smaller switches such as the one originally linked where applicable, and wireless only for the portable devices if at all possible.

Dell, Netgear, and some others make switches in the budget category which fill such a role. HP would be towards the higher end if you're so inclined.

 

[jsedlak]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: jsedlak
the number of devices on the network at peak is somewhere around 15-20 machines of various types

Why did you link a budget 8-port gigabit switch if you have so many devices? I'd suggest getting a biggish gigabit switch which would let you connect as many devices as you could to start directly, and filling in the gaps with smaller switches such as the one originally linked where applicable, and wireless only for the portable devices if at all possible.

Dell, Netgear, and some others make switches in the budget category which fill such a role. HP would be towards the higher end if you're so inclined.

Well don't forget I am a noob at networking stuff (and pretty much any hardware in general). I can't tell what is "budget" and what isn't besides price.

Upgrading to a switch with more ports really isn't possible for us anyways because of the placement of all the devices. I will have to draw the network out it seems, but for now understand that there are physical limitations to what we can put where based on the design of the house.

Here is the network layout to the best of my memory:
http://jsedlak.org/images/network_layout.jpg

I could possibly move the servers down to where the main switch is, but that is about it and would be risky as we have had floods down there. Thus I would have to build some sort of rack structure to get the servers off the ground. :S

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jsedlak

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: jsedlak
the number of devices on the network at peak is somewhere around 15-20 machines of various types

Why did you link a budget 8-port gigabit switch if you have so many devices? I'd suggest getting a biggish gigabit switch which would let you connect as many devices as you could to start directly, and filling in the gaps with smaller switches such as the one originally linked where applicable, and wireless only for the portable devices if at all possible.

Dell, Netgear, and some others make switches in the budget category which fill such a role. HP would be towards the higher end if you're so inclined.

Well don't forget I am a noob at networking stuff (and pretty much any hardware in general). I can't tell what is "budget" and what isn't besides price.

Upgrading to a switch with more ports really isn't possible for us anyways because of the placement of all the devices. I will have to draw the network out it seems, but for now understand that there are physical limitations to what we can put where based on the design of the house.

Here is the network layout to the best of my memory:
http://jsedlak.org/images/network_layout.jpg

Well, one of the issues with the more expensive Netgear, Dell, Linksys, or HP switches are that they are managed switches. You can (AFAIK) just plug it in and it *should* work, but if something gets funky you would have to actually dig into the switch and figure out what's going on. Being a "networking noob", I wouldn't recommend a managed switch unless you have somebody to actually configure it.

Do you have a switch in H1/H2 or is each device hard wired to the router?

The easiest way to do this would either be 1) connect a switch for each room for however many devices are needed. The issue here is that when you start having multiple switches, you need protocols like STP (spanning tree protocol) that more expensive managed switches will have. So, you would need multiple lower port gigabit managed switches. 2) get one big switch (24+ port) and run a wire to each room for each device. To make it easier for you, you can use patch panels at each room (basically this extends the port from the switch out to a local room so you can move stuff around all the room, and not have to re-run a 50+ ft cable through walls).

There could be other options, but your network isn't easy to do for a simple solutions.

edit:

Originally posted by: jsedlak
I could possibly move the servers down to where the main switch is, but that is about it and would be risky as we have had floods down there. Thus I would have to build some sort of rack structure to get the servers off the ground. :S

If this is possible, I would do this. Get a centrally located switch, and put as many of the servers in the same room as possible. It would be the easiest for you to do.

 

[jsedlak]

H1/H2/H3 are different hubs in each room, not hardwires that run to the router directly.

The problem is that the path from the main switch to the upstairs hub is blocked by several load bearing beams, so negotiating more than one wire would be tricky. Currently the wire is a hack fix and runs outside a window, up a wall and then through that wall. The hole is, of course, exactly the size of the single cat 5e cable.

This is getting fun! ...not.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

A possible 24 port switch option

Another option

And another

Unmanaged one.

Here's 24 port gigabit switches on Newegg.

This post doesn't have much relevance on the thread since OP can't use a central switch due to the house design.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jsedlak
H1/H2/H3 are different hubs in each room, not hardwires that run to the router directly.

The problem is that the path from the main switch to the upstairs hub is blocked by several load bearing beams, so negotiating more than one wire would be tricky. Currently the wire is a hack fix and runs outside a window, up a wall and then through that wall. The hole is, of course, exactly the size of the single cat 5e cable.

This is getting fun! ...not.

Okay, well that eliminates the patch panel option I outlined earlier.

I don't know how well unmanaged switches will work with multiple switches in your topology. If unmanaged switches would work, then put an unmanaged gigabit switch in each room replacing the hubs.

 

[jsedlak]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: jsedlak
H1/H2/H3 are different hubs in each room, not hardwires that run to the router directly.

The problem is that the path from the main switch to the upstairs hub is blocked by several load bearing beams, so negotiating more than one wire would be tricky. Currently the wire is a hack fix and runs outside a window, up a wall and then through that wall. The hole is, of course, exactly the size of the single cat 5e cable.

This is getting fun! ...not.

Okay, well that eliminates the patch panel option I outlined earlier.

I don't know how well unmanaged switches will work with multiple switches in your topology. If unmanaged switches would work, then put an unmanaged gigabit switch in each room replacing the hubs.

And a single managed switch at the highest level possible?

edit - I think I actually came up with a way to have a single switch and run the specific number of cables to each location. If this is the case, will an unmanaged 24port switch do the trick?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jsedlak

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: jsedlak
H1/H2/H3 are different hubs in each room, not hardwires that run to the router directly.

The problem is that the path from the main switch to the upstairs hub is blocked by several load bearing beams, so negotiating more than one wire would be tricky. Currently the wire is a hack fix and runs outside a window, up a wall and then through that wall. The hole is, of course, exactly the size of the single cat 5e cable.

This is getting fun! ...not.

Okay, well that eliminates the patch panel option I outlined earlier.

I don't know how well unmanaged switches will work with multiple switches in your topology. If unmanaged switches would work, then put an unmanaged gigabit switch in each room replacing the hubs.

And a single managed switch at the highest level possible?

edit - I think I actually came up with a way to have a single switch and run the specific number of cables to each location. If this is the case, will an unmanaged 24port switch do the trick?

Yes it would, and IMO would be the easiest option for you. You don't get any kind of configuration ability, but it doesn't sound like you need or want that.

 

[jsedlak]

Awesome. The only problem becomes the distance factor of the various lines. Should be quite less than the 100 meters max that Wiki states, but never-the-less...

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jsedlak
Awesome. The only problem becomes the distance factor of the various lines. Should be quite less than the 100 meters max that Wiki states, but never-the-less...

Well, map out the distances.

Cat 6 and gigabit ethernet is rated at gig speeds up to 100 meters. That said, the longer the run the worse performance you'll see. Once again personally I'd keep the cable to 90 meters or less to be safe. Although, if you can't make the connection in 270 feet you must be living in a mansion or office or something.

 

[jsedlak]

That would be nice, but no... the line would have to go up the building and then diagonally across it. Similarly the line for other devices would have to go down and then loop around the perimeter of the house. Not optimal at all.

 

[ImDonly1]

Originally posted by: jsedlak

Originally posted by: imagoon

Originally posted by: jsedlak
Thanks for the help!

You say that 802.3u doesn't support gigabit speeds, but why does this router not list anything else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833127215

Even the D-Link site suggests 10/100/1000 support but does not list anything but 802.3/3u.

802.3 (no letter) indicates thicknet. Definitely no connector for a vampire tap on that thing.

Ok, this time in noobified-English?

What you are saying is it doesn't actually support gigabit?

bobdole369 - According to wikipedia, you were correct I think... 3u is 10/100 and 3ab is 10/100/1000.

And the more I look at the adapters the more I see 802.3ab listed for all 10/100/1000 devices.

Ugh.

So what router then?

Didn't read the rest of the thread, but the DIR-655 is a gigabit router/supports gigabit.