Home Network - Sky CAT6

uddin_1995

Hi, Need some advice.:o

Having Sky Fibre installed on the 29th.

This fibre broadband will be connected to a network switch which will then be distributed to all rooms via CAT6 cable which is inside my walls.

Sky Hub comes with CAT5 as a standard. Will it be better to connect the hub to the switch either with CAT5e or CAT6?

Thanks in advance.

Enterprise_1701C

It depends on what speed broadband you will be having. Cat 5 goes up to 100mb, cat 6 up to 250mb. I am guessing you are going to be getting less than 100mb, so I would go with Cat 5 assuming it is replaceable in a few years. Nice to have Cat 6 in the walls though, future proof

uddin_1995

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

It depends on what speed broadband you will be having. Cat 5 goes up to 100mb, cat 6 up to 250mb. I am guessing you are going to be getting less than 100mb, so I would go with Cat 5 assuming it is replaceable in a few years. Nice to have Cat 6 in the walls though, future proof

Thanks for your reply.
Yeah thats why I installed CAT6 to make my home future proof while complete refurbishment work is happening.
Sky Fibre speed has been estimates at 40mb but people usually get up to 60-70mb so I guess I will use the standard CAT5 they provide.:)

Pincher

I would just try both, and do a speed test.


Ethernet is based on low utilisation index, i.e. it works better when the medium is idle most of the time. I'm surprised a 40Mbps (with potential for 80) modem/router would depend on a 100Mbps Ethernet.

uddin_1995

Pincher wrote: »

I would just try both, and do a speed test.


Ethernet is based on low utilisation index, i.e. it works better when the medium is idle most of the time. I'm surprised a 40Mbps (with potential for 80) modem/router would depend on a 100Mbps Ethernet.

Got some of it, Can you dumb it down for me a bit lol

Pincher

If the roads of London was 100% full, you would have gridlock. Nobody moves. Even at 80% full, you would probably crawl at 10 miles an hour. At 10% full, everything move freely.

littleboo

Cat 5 -> 100Mb
Cat 5e -> 1Gb
Cat 6 > 1Gb

So Cat 5e between your router and switch would be fine, its more flexible too if they are close to each other. But no reason not to use the Cat 6 if it's already part of the house wiring or you're still installing, particularly if the router and switch are not going to be in the same area.

penrhyn

All a bit OTT whats wrong with wireless and or homeplugs?

These look nice.

http://www.screwfix.com/p/power-ethernet-powerline-socket/41241?_requestid=137622#

Nilrem

Pincher wrote: »

I would just try both, and do a speed test.


Ethernet is based on low utilisation index, i.e. it works better when the medium is idle most of the time. I'm surprised a 40Mbps (with potential for 80) modem/router would depend on a 100Mbps Ethernet.

Are you sure?

Wired ethernet via cat 5 cable has separate conductors for both directions, it works well up to whatever the speed it's rated to is (indeed you can get a sustained 100mbit connection out of 5/5e easily, and more if your hardware supports it).
In fact you can even sometimes go out of the spec and still get the max rated speed (IIRC it's rated at say 100mbit for about a 100m run, but people can and do sometimes go a fair bit further without issue).

What you're talking about is, from memory largely dependant on the actual medium used for the ethernet connection - baring in mind the ethernet protocalls work across anything from radios (IIRC it was based on a system used in the Hawaiian islands originally), to all sorts of different cabling configurations, to sound propagating through water (a new way of doing that made the news recently for use with underwater systems).

The limits with speeds are mainly down to the physical medium used by the ethernet connection.
For example wireless, thin ethernet, and hubs with cat5 cabling all suffer from issues with the fact you're effectively sharing the bandwidth either between all the machines at once, or there is nothing to stop multiple machines talking over each other.

Cat5 (or higher) with a switch (or a switch in the router) can easily support it's rated speed usually in both directions without ill effects - the limits are usually down to the actual hardware at the end (you can max out a lot of older hard drives if you're using a good gigabit card and cat5e cabling, and a lot of routers can't cope with a lot of traffic from the wan to the lan side of things* due to their processors)

I use cat 5e cabling I ran around the house something like 10 years ago (after retiring a thin ethernet 10mbs network), these days for my 120mbit connection and it's more than fine
We can have someone downloading a game off steam at 13MB/s without it affecting normal browsing, or even gaming on a couple of other machines.
I can also use it to transfer files from one machine to another without it affecting a third, at about 90+mbit.

In short the op has nothing to worry about with regards to speed using cat5 cabling, as long as it's properly connected and not damaged.


*I had to retire a pretty good, and reliable router because it couldn't cope with 50mb on the WAN, the same cabling/modem/PC coped with 100mbit+ without it, as did a newer router.

Nilrem

penrhyn wrote: »

All a bit OTT whats wrong with wireless and or homeplugs?

These look nice.

http://www.screwfix.com/p/power-ethernet-powerline-socket/41241?_requestid=137622#

Wireless does get congested easily if you're running at high speeds for your internet, it also has the problem that you can end up with dead or poor reception spots (let along potential issues if you've got neighbours using wireless, or anyone near you uses a wireless sender for their TV).

Homeplugs are slightly better than wireless, but can also suffer from congestion if you're using more than one or two machines.

Both suffer from it because generally they're using one "conductor" (be it one wire, or one set of frequencies) for all communications from all users in both directions on the network.
In a way homeplugs are a little like the ancient thin ethernet standard, where you used a co-ax cable to connect all the machines, it's just done via the mains cable now.

uddin_1995

Nilrem wrote: »

Wireless does get congested easily if you're running at high speeds for your internet, it also has the problem that you can end up with dead or poor reception spots (let along potential issues if you've got neighbours using wireless, or anyone near you uses a wireless sender for their TV).

Homeplugs are slightly better than wireless, but can also suffer from congestion if you're using more than one or two machines.

Both suffer from it because generally they're using one "conductor" (be it one wire, or one set of frequencies) for all communications from all users in both directions on the network.
In a way homeplugs are a little like the ancient thin ethernet standard, where you used a co-ax cable to connect all the machines, it's just done via the mains cable now.

Exactly! That's why I went for the CAT6 around my house. Also it's future proof and for what I paid, I think I was robbing the guy Lol. Forgot to mention I am also having wireless access point around the house. One on each floor. Ground, first and loft.