During a data transfer any other user has to wait before they can get anything. If you're backing up a terabyte of data over said network it's going to be out of use a long time.
A gig may seem insanely fast now, but it will be obsolete in our lifetime.
NT
Just accessing a file from a NAS will saturate 100M easily. In many cases it will also saturate 1G. Files access at 1G still feels noticeably slower than direct from SSD for example.
Many better nas devices come with multiple 1G ports now. Mine has 4 setup with link aggregation. It can obviously only feed one single device at 1G, but that does not rob others of bandwidth.
It does if both are accessing the same server
>10 Gb/s is pretty mainstream these days. But it does seem to need fibre for more than a few metres. No personal experience.
It's quite possible to build a home NAS that will sustain 10Gb/s now. Not necessarily very cheap, but ordinary OTS components.
My NAS[1] will quite happily saturate two GB connections at once and have spare capacity...
[1] and its not even particularly "high end" just a 4 way RAID 10 box.
Down at the other end of the scale, I have a RPi2 with a 3TB USB laptop drive running OMV and can stream most videos from it directly (no transcoding etc)?
Same from my WHS.
If I had the money (to spend on more toys) I think I'd like one of the Synology / Qnap NAS's (I installed the baby Synology NAS for a mate but he's not really using it yet) but I think I'd rather upgrade the 3 x 500G laptop drives I have in my (Mk1) WHS with 3 x 1TB as it seems to do everything I need ... ad 3TB can be backed up onto an external USB drive fairly easily / cheaply these days.
Cheers, T i m
This all way,way above any anticipated need:-)
I suppose video streaming may arrive one day but currently I don't even watch Netflix etc.
At the time of purchase, I had not appreciated the termination issues and simply bought 100m of what was discussed here as best for future proofing the cottage data connections. In the event, the electrician knew even less than I so the system was daisy chained.
Moving the planned telephone intake and router will give good wi-fi coverage despite the concern about interfloor chicken wire (tested by Tim) and makes most of the connections spider web.
The feed back to my desktop is currently planned to loop though a switch and also feed a second fixed m/c. Tim is pushing for a fresh connection to avoid the need for the switch. Do-able but involves a fresh expedition into the lofts more drilling holes through cavity walls and fitting a coupler to the existing cable.
I think, if the switch fails, a patch cable will keep me going while it is sorted out:-)
I forgot about that. I thought A 's was a laptop and therefore be wireless but if it's not typically used 'portably' then going wired would potentially take some load off the WiFi (and this may be what we considered at the time).
Not specifically that (as you already have the switch and may need one at that location anyway), but more that it would actually make *all* your LAN wiring more traditional / logical.
I thought the lounge cupboard to loft was going to be trunked but I've probably got it wrong.
Cutting the existing run and re-routing (via an extension, joining in a punch down Cat6 junction box) into the lounge cupboard. That said, if any further work isn't going to make that job any more difficult in the future, then there is no rush (if ever). ;-)
Quite. ;-)
I have the tools at the ready (the Cat6 junction boxes are on their way but unneeded etc) so it's just a matter of you getting the stuff you ordered in and as ready as you like and giving me the nod.
If you want to do as much as you can (if only to minimise the number of snags), we just need the back boxes fitted to wherever you want them to go and the Cat6 threaded though ready to terminate. What would be nice is to find the Cat6 RJ45 frontplates colour coded and the colours matching what you have in the cable (or all but one pair).
The key runs will be the Cat5 from behind the gable, though the loft and to where you want the BT master socket and the Cat5 run from the study to the same place, ready for BT to do all the termination.
Then the Cat6 run back from the lounge to the study, via A's cupboard.
Cheers, T i m
Maybe... and some of this is just thread drift, and not specifically addressing your OP.
In your case, 1G over CAT5E will certainly do all you require now, and will likely meet future needs.
To those that would argue 10/100 is "all you need" on the grounds that is still faster than you broadband connection and faster than required to stream HD video, they are right - but missing the point. You will feel the impact of 10/100 the moment you need to copy large files from one machine to another.
CAT6 will in theory allow you to go faster still - but it comes with cost of being a PITA to wire. So personally I would not bother on domestic installs.
That's not the only kind of streaming in question though. For example ripping CDs and DVDs to some kind of server on your LAN will the allow you to access those in multiple locations without needing local DVD/CD players etc.
I do the same for recoding live TV as well these days - a network based tuner, that I can "record" to a file on a server for later watching.
The only question I really have is 'is all Cat6 screened or does Tim actually have (and need) Cat6e, if that's the screened variant?
If it's all screened, what do you do with the screen, even if you aren't actively using it?
Cheers, T i m
No
Thanks. ;-)
So, would we have recommended someone get a screened Cat6 and if not and we have one, what do we do with the screens in a non screened requirement?
Cheers, T i m
Which will tie up the involved machines but unless the switch doesn't have the grunt it'll only be those machines. A > B and C > D maxed out will still work, the whole LAN won't come to a grinding halt because of a file is being copied across it.
I see willy waving on the "my NAS has 4 10G ports and it can saturate all of them", who really in a domestic setting shuffles gigabyte files from one machine to another on such a regular basis that 100 Mbps would be a PITA. Maybe I'm not so sensitive to it must be done
*now* as others, having come from the dialup world when a 100 MB file would take over 3 1/2 hours to download...Ripping, yes when starting from the begining of your collection and doing the lot a faster LAN might help (but again gigabit works over Cat5e...).
Playback of CD audio even a dozen streams from a single machine won't make 10 Mbps break into a sweat. 100 Mbps should be able handle 2 raw Blueray quality streams of about 40 Mbps each. Gigabit 20+, more than enough domestically. So what source is on the horizon that will push
100 Mbps? Bear in mind HD TVOB's connect over a 270 Mbps fibre link that carries 4 channels, ie 67.5 Mbps (ish) each. I guess the likes of Netflix might start to offer 8k (if they aren't already) but then you have the problem of delivery...Yes, 10 Gbps is becoming very common and it's quite nice when at a venue connected via 3 x 10 Gbps links and your essentaily the only person using it. Even better when the real users are in and it's not slowed down. Pity none of the mobile networks can cope with 50,000 phones in the same place.
I would have just said cat6 UTP, or even cat5e UTP if 10Gbps is not a likely requirement.
Technically they should probably be commoned and grounded at one end only, practically leave them disconnected.
If you have them, then they get terminated at the CAT6 plugs / fittings etc as a normal part of the process. (e.g. cat6 RJ45 connectors have a metal jacket that partly encases the outer side of the plug, that has a tail connection that ends up being crimped around the foil of the STP cable)
No indeed, that's the advantage of a switch over an old style hub.
However if you are copying a few DVD image sized files about, you will notice the difference it waiting an hour instead of 5 mins for the process to complete.
That's hardly willy waving in this day and age - just a middle spec NAS straight out of the box.
In my case frequently enough to be a PITA... copying media files, photos, and audio etc certainly, but also large user profiles and mail folders for example and also backup images.
I have found the need has evolved with time. There was a point on dialup you could spend the first 20 mins of your connection time, with the link mostly saturated just with updates and patches for your computer - but they were maybe a megabyte or two tops for the lot, and you were probably only patching one computer. These days its not uncommon to have just a single update topping 100MB, and frequently you have a whole network load of computers, phones, tablets, TVs etc fighting for patch bandwidth. So the real world user experience in many cases has not got much better!
Its telling that loading the relatively sparce (looking) google front page, is now a larger download than a complete download of the DOS version of DOOM!
Indeed, hence why I would suggest that 1GB over CAT5E is the sweet spot.
There is no point in installing 10/100 since the cabling is the same, and all that changes is you save a tenner on the cost of the switch, for a big drop in performance.
Streaming in general does not take much bandwidth on a wired lan. Even at HD.
For streaming, only >= 4K TV.
However for any non trivial sized file transfers, I find 100Mb is way too slow these days.
I think some services are trialling some 8K stuff. Plenty of them offer
4K IIUC... although its a bit accademic for me since we have not got the internet bandwidth for even normal HD.
Understood.
Cheers, T i m
Yes, I understand that John, (I've done a fair install of Cat5e STP) but we will be terminating the Cat6(e?) in RJ45 wall boxes and I'm guessing you would need an 'STP' version of that for the screen to be formally 'forwarded' and then you would need an STP patch cable and an STP switch to actually provide the final ground?
Cheers, T i m
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.