Wireless vs. Ethernet

[Telinar]

Ok, so this is the situation. I work for this small company with probably about 7 employees that will be moving into a different office soon. My boss has asked me about switching to a wireless network for the file server and internet sharing. The files that are being shared are only about 20 mb's each. At first, I thought this was a bad idea because wireless is supposed to be slower than ethernet. However I later realized that the files being shared aren't that large anyway, and someone probably only accesses one in about every 20 minutes or so it might not make much of a difference. I also didn't like the idea of wireless because wireless typically is more expensive than ethernet, but the new office we are moving into does not have cat5 cable laid in it yet, so would laying cat5 cabling offset the lower cost of ethernet? I'm inclined to stay with ethernet because the network is critical to the function of the company, so it may be more reliable and it might also be cheaper, however I don't want to just rule out wireless because my boss seems to want wireless as he thinks it's more "high-tech." It might also be easier and faster to set up a wireless network. So, what do you guys think? What are the benefits of wireless over ethernet and vice versa? Thanks.

 

[MichaelD]

Here's my opinion.

Small office, only 7 people, use wired ethernet.

Running the cabling for that small an office can be done in one full day. Run extra cables to allow for future expansion, get a a 16-port switch and a SOHO router for your cable or DSL internet connection, and you're done.

You can hide the server, switch, router and UPS in a corner behind someone's desk.

 

[Soybomb]

I don't see any advantage of wireless in your situation only a failure point, limitation for future scalability, and a security problem. I think its well worth it to have cat5 pulled.

 

[Ime]

Here's another vote for Cat5.

 

[JackMDS]

Since the Network is crucial to the company, relying on Wireless only is strongly not advisable.

Wireless is not stable, and secure for such a roll. (Unless you spend a fortune on special propriety systems).

However your boss wants to be cool. Why Not? Every one in our society (age 1-100) wants to be cool.

Build a good wired network, and plug an Access Point into one of the switches (plug it near the Boss office). Secure it and let it sit there. People with adequate configured Laptops (like your Boss) would be able to enjoy coolness for the $100 cost of an Access Point.

Primers to Wireless here:

AnandTech - FAQ. What do I need for wireless Networking?

Wireless Cable/DSL Router or Access Point ? What should I get?

Wireless What Should I Get (March, 2003 Edition)?

 

[skyking]

Another vote for copper if at all possible.

 

[spidey07]

Want constant headaches, up/down/up/down, slow performance and shared media? Go wireless.

If you want a network that performs flawlessly at 100 Mbs every day of the year then go wired.

 

[chanachana]

Originally posted by: Ime
Here's another vote for Cat5.

 

[ktwebb]

Installed wireless LAN's and WAN's for close to 5 years. Mostly Cisco and some Orinoco, with a few RadioLAN and Proxim radios every once in a while on the LAN side. Various solutions on the WAN side. Also installed thousands of feet of copper. Run Copper as your backbone and add AP's to the infrastructure. The Up-down-Up-down comment is rubbish. Wireless LAN's, if engineered properly and good equipment is used, can be extremely reliable. The problem with wireless is speed and security. Unless you want to go Radius authentication or VPN access, the default security measures for 802.11 are imperfect to say the least. Even with the higher bandwith wireless solutions, they still pale in comparison to a good switched copper LAN. Perhaps if sharing an internet connection is the networks only or primary function you could get away with a wireless infrastructure. If you have a file server or two on the network and it gets hit hard at all, then you'll regret going wireless if you decide to do that. Wireless may be a good choice for a network backbone at some point. Right now, it is not.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: skyking
Another vote for copper if at all possible.

I was not discounting wireless totally, for some remote spots or circumstances, running wire can be a mother bear. The "set it and forget it, fast performance" of wire is too attractive for me to give up, if it takes a few hours to do it.

 

[darkpixel]

If your boss wants to be the coolest boss on the block, then he should have a reliable ethernet AND a cool wireless. That way, my friends and I can drive up next to your building and play xbox live through our laptops' wireless connection to your network just because we're bored. No I'm kidding. But if your boss has the budget, I'd say get both. It's fun to just walk in with a laptop and not have to do any setup.

 

[spidey07]

. Wireless LAN's, if engineered properly and good equipment is used, can be extremely reliable

ktwebb,

Absolutely! But more often than not both criteria are not met (engineered properly with full site survey and good gear/antennae). So you get spotty coverage.

 

[Telinar]

Thanks for all the input. I guess the consensus is to use ethernet. We'll do that and maybe we can add some wireless later. Thanks

 

[ktwebb]

"Absolutely! But more often than not both criteria are not met (engineered properly with full site survey and good gear/antennae). So you get spotty coverage."

I suppose. I can only speak from my personal experience and frankly, mainly because of the immaturity of the technology and companies who offer it, I haven't gone "behind" many technicians to fix wireless connectivity problems. I'd say 99% of the triple digit wireless LAN or WAN jobs I have been a part of were started from the discussion/pheasibilty stage. The ones that panned out were meticulously surveyed by me or my co-workers. Of course it's not just wireless jobs that are done poorly so using your logic you could use the up-down-up-down analogy on any network installation. Shotty work is shotty work, although I could see where a larger percentage of sub-standard work on wireless jobs could cause more grief for the users than a cabled network. As far as the hardware itself. If a company isn't using quality equipment (buying SOHO hardware to save a few bucks), well, they get what they pay for generally speaking. Poor advice or judgement in that scenario. Hard for me to imagine someone depending on a Linksys AP in an office setting where up time is critical, but I suppose it happens.