Because noone ever phones on the landline and I never phone out on it. If I want to talk to Fred I press his name on the phone in my pocket, if Bob wants to talk to me he presses my name on the phone in his pocket. This is simple and works everywhere. Why would I want to use a different and more clunky system just because I happen to be at home?
I've done it for our cheapo home LAN and had no problems - all cat5 solid cabling goes direct to loft switch without a patch panel on the way. Wouldn't risk it if there was to be any movement though.
I would almost put money on it not working particulary reliably here. But hey if you can put up with phone calls with dropouts, distortion and having to continually repeat things or get things repeated that's up to you.
Because mobile coverage is anything but reliable or universal, the voice quality is poor and the delay annoying.
The message from Pete Verdon contains these words:
Because if you were like most people, you'd find that many people phone on landlines -- though that's not a reason for you at the moment
Because you could phone out for "nothing" i.e. at no marginal cost on any reasonable landline deal whereas mobile deals don't generally have unlimited calls during the day
100Mb 5 or 8 port switches under £10 brand new.
1Gb 8 port switches were down to £30 brand new, but have crept up a bit since the pound dropped.
Occasionally you can get a bargin from eBay second hand (I got a Netgear GS108 8 port 1GB switch for £30; this make would normally be much more), but more usually I see second hand ethernet switches going for more much more on eBay than they cost brand new (if you search around).
I wouldn't bother with cat 6 for home use. My home network is 1Gb, which is pretty well matched to the data rate I can get from a pair of 7200RPM mirrored SATA drives. (Drives are about 75Mbyte/sec sustained, and mirroring gets me to something over 100Mbytes/sec sustained read rate, which is similar speed to 1Gbit network. To make good use of 10Gb, you'd need a filesystem striped across many disks, even when using Enterprise class 15k RPM disks, or to wait for solid state disks to replace spinning rust.)
I actually meant to include a comment there about 100M being somewhat short sighted given that many (most?) machines now come with gigabit as standard. The price differences you quoted (and which I have now checked on my usual sources) are greater than I thought - looks like the 10/100 stuff has slipped down in price and the gigabit gone up a bit.
I doubt many of us have the level of harsh environment I mentioned in our houses - so, yes, unlikely to use Cat 6 at home.
Moore's Law (doubling every 18 months) does apply to disk transfer rates. So Gigabit is fine now, and will be for 18 months (one doubling) and from then on will be a problem for certain uses. It's the *cable* I'd suggest forking out for, not the electronics - the cable is there for the long term.
Unfortunately not. Disk capacities don't lag too far 18 month doubling now, but all other disk performance parameters lag way behind this, which is why disk performance has steadily become a more and more limiting factor in performance of many computing applications. A quick calculation shows disk transfer rates have doubled about every 45 months over the last 25 years. That's one reason applications often require complex disk array infrastructures, to make up for the serious [relative] lag of disk performance behind the progress made in CPU performance.
Out of interest, here's a table of relative performance changes I use in a presentation I give on filesystem performance from time to time...
The CPU performance improvement is pretty much spot on for doubling every 18 months. All the disk performance parameters lag behind, mostly _way_ behind. The exponential increase in disk capacity is not linear over the period, being faster in more recent years, which is why it's nearly on doubling every 18 months now. When SSD's become mainstream, there will be a giant discontinuity in disk performance. They're still too expensive and too small to use other than in some specialist situations, but that's changing fast.
(Note that Moore's Law is really a doubling of transistor counts on a chip every 2 years, although it's often used to refer to any exponential gain scheme.)
I stand corrected. That suggests gigabit will last much longer than I thought.
Unlikely. The big gain with SSDs (flash or not) isn't the transfer rate, it's the latency. Or to translate that:
The peak rate isn't much different. You get similar rates - which isn't too surprising, as they are usually hung off the same bus that was designed to handle disc traffic.
But when you ask for a sector, you get it immediately. There's none of this move the head to the right place, wait for the disc to spin to the right place, read some data you get with discs. It just so happens I ran a benchmark on a USB thumb drive the other day. While transfer rate is nothing special, latency (which is typically several mS for a disc) came out as 900 microseconds.
SSD speeds have improved quite a lot - 220 MB/s now available (or at least announced) from Samsung. And I would guess they likely have further improvements not far behind.
Added back a second one for comment further down...
Yes, indeed. That translates into the number of I/O's per second (IOPS). There are now read-biased Enterprise SSD's giving >50,000 IOPS (reads), verses 300 IOPS you get from todays Enterprise disks (SAS or fibre channel). This can give you an astonishing speedup of applications which use synchronous disk i/o, as they are predominately limited by the number of IOPS they can get through the disk subsystem. 80,000 IOPS is probably about the limit of what you can get across current disk interconnects in any case, and actually way exceeds what most of todays disk controllers can handle, given they weren't designed for disks that fast.
Yes. An Enterprise SSD should get something even better, although I don't have a figure to hand.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.