Ethernet Conduit

[RJH]

Just at the point before plastering, so I intend to build in the option to hard wire internet and network connections by installing trunking/conduit from the top of the house (2nd floor) to the bottom (cellar) in one vertical run. I intend to cut a channel into the existing plaster and fit the conduit. The plasterer can then make good - the whole house is getting a skim.

It's going to be easiest to keep all the gubbins (NAS and switch) in the cellar, which would require the capacity for 6 Ethernet cables. I'm using homeplugs at the moment which are fine - I'm after better performance.

What's the best sort to use (round/rectangle section?) and what's the minimum diameter/area I'd need? A link to something would be handy - from say:

Thanks, Rob

[Tim Watts]

On Sunday 28 April 2013 08:57 RJH wrote in uk.d-i-y:

20mm oval conduit will take 2 cables including cat5e an aerial.

Oval will probably site in the depth of the plaster avoiding the need to chisel deep chases.

However, for the run you are talking about, you will need backboxes with blanking lids on every floor to both join the conduit and to act as pulling access.

20mm conduit will take 3-4 cables (if you pull them together and have someelse up top feeding them in and keeping the twists under control. This would be the betetr option if it is not impractical.

For total luxury, 4x20mm conduit, double gang boxes on each floor again for pulling points.

[F]

With most motherboards offering gigabit now, and speeds likely to increase in the future, wouldn't it be better to use Cat6?

[Tim Watts]

On Sunday 28 April 2013 11:18 F wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I'm pretty sure Cat6a will fit 2 to a tube - but I can only personally vouch for Cat5e - which is gigabit.

Or are you proposing wiring for 10 gig?

[F]

My understanding is that 5e is not gigabit, but almost gigabit. The Cat6 I have here is physically, as near as makes no difference, the same size as Cat5e.

No, just going for what is currently fastest at a reasonable cost.

[Andy Burns]

You needn't worry, Cat5e *is* gigabit. If you have cat6 you can use it, its extra stiffness might help threading it into conduit, but its greater bend radius might hinder too.

[F]

[Andy Burns]

So you want to take some random site's word against the IEEE 802.3ab spec that defines 1000base-T to run over Cat5, Cat5e or cat6?

[polygonum]

I for one have regularly seen Cat5e achieve gigabit speeds without any difficulty.

In a very "noisy" environment, such as within a server cabinet, I would choose to use Cat6, if feasible. But even there, I have seen Cat5e work OK.

[meow2222]

Whatever counduit you put in, I'd suggest fitting both conduit AND however many 5es you can get in, placed outside the conduit. They can be terminated another day when needed. Why? Its easier than threading later, it gives yo u more total capacity, more expandability, the 5e can always be used for ot her things in 20years time, and 5e's very cheap.

NT

[Dave Liquorice]

You'll need several runs of 20 mm conduit to get 6 cables in. Is 6 really enough cable is cheap, installation messy and expensive...

Have you an internal soil stack already boxed in? Probably not if you have a house old enough to have a cellar.

If you stick something square in a corner it doesn't show much, provided you don't choose a corner that is always viewable. So think about ones next to doors (the door when open will hide most of it) or next to windows with curtains. Think I'd go got something with around 1.5 square inches of duct space, once a duct starts to geta bit full pulling more in gets much harder. 40 x 25 will be starting to get full but with a lid you don't have to pull cables in...

[F]

Not random, just one of several.

Gigabit will run on Cat5e, just not as well as it would over Cat6. It's up to the OP to decide what to do: I have no interest other than to offer a point of view that he might want to research/consider.

[dennis]

You will probably never see a problem with short cables but you may with

100m cables. Not many server cabinets use more than a metre or three.

[Andy Burns]

You started by saying Cat5e is "almost gigabit".

[John Walliker]

Cat5e is, as already mentioned many times, absolutely fine for gigabit ethernet up to 100m.

Cat6 will give you no measurable advantage unless you have a very noisy environment.

Gbit ethernet uses exactly the same frequencies as 100Mbit. The difference is in the coding scheme, the number of pairs used and in the use of full-duplex with echo-cancellation.

However, if you really want to future-proof the system, install some duplex 50um (OM2 or preferably OM3) fibre. Preterminated lengths up to around 25 or 30m with duplex LC connectors can be obtained for a few GBP on eBay. As long as you pull the fibre through before any Cat5e cables, the LC connectors will easily fit down 20mm conduit.

850nm SFP transceivers are very cheap on eBay - sometimes as little as 99p plus postage. Gigabit switches with a pair of SFP sockets are fairly inexpensive now. The low cost ones don't care what make of transceiver you use. Any speed rating of 1Gbit/s or higher will interwork with any other for Gbit ethernet. (I recently tested a 1Gbit/s device together with a 10Gbit/s and they inter-worked fine.)

Single mode fibre gives better bandwidth and range than multimode, but the 1310nm single mode transceivers are generally much more expensive. OM3 multimode fibre will easily give you 10Gbit/s transmission anywhere in even the largest house.

John

[newshound]

+1

[John Rumm]

My considered technical response to that would be: bollocks.

(gigabit ethernet runs at the same baud rate as 100Mb ethernet, so it no more stresses it or pushes the limits than 100Mb).

If all you need is gigabit, then cat5e will work perfectly and cat6 will offer no advantage (although also work perfectly - its just more expensive and harder to wire with)

Pulling fibre would be one option. Although with the fall in the price of managed switches, just laying in a few extra cat5e runs would enable you to take advantage of bonding together a couple of gigabit runs if you really need extra bandwidth on some runs.

[F]

I did. Because it doesn't perform in a gigabit environment as well as Cat6.

You know, I really have got better things to do than to indulge you in a back and forth because you want to spend your time trying to stoke a petty argument over semantics. I offered a reasonable comment to help the OP. I'm content that it was accurate and worth his consideration. If it makes you feel better or helps your ego then go ahead and have the last word.

[Andy Burns]

You're suggesting that Cat6 performs better for gigabit ethernet, I can't accept that. The most I could accept is that Cat6 would have to be further out of spec than cat5 before problems were encountered.

Funny how everyone else disagrees with you ...

[yendor]

Totally over the top. Cat6 cable will support 10Gb up to 40m, and if the runs are longer then Cat 6A will work at 10Gb. Cat5e would give Gb speeds and can be used as a draw wire if in the future the OP needs

10Gb. By the time he gets round to needing the speeds that fibre is required them even OM3 will be outdated.