On 23 Feb 2024 at 09:55:36 GMT, Pancho wrote:

> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>
>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>
>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>
>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>
> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless is
> getting very impressive.

Inclined to agree. I've just moved from an ethernet NAS linked house to the
current mesh-wireless. It's not as quick and reliable, but easily good enough
for chucking the odd GB file around, TV streaming etc.

And it's getting to the point where I'd happily trade fibre broadband for a 5G
unlimited mobile tariff. Again, not as good, but good enough.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 23/02/2024 13:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 11:30, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
>>>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a
>>>>> nightmare.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>>>
>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
>>>> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless
>>>> is getting very impressive.
>>>
>>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>>
>>
>> This from a man who has a 100Mb/s LAN?
>>
>> My point was that in the past, wireless was shit, it had slow speeds,
>> poor range, high latency, and random disconnections. So you wanted
>> every important device wired to the LAN.
>>
>> Nowadays you can have many cooperating Wi-Fi access points in the
>> home. In mine they are wired together, but I find myself not bothering
>> to wire in new devices like TV/HTPCs.
>>
>> Eventually I think the need for wires will disappear. So planning for
>> the future is YAGNI.
>>
>>
> Well if you want to go back to insecure congested local area networking,
> be my guest
>
> I suggest you also study Shannon's law.
>

Shannon, Shannon? Where have I heard that before?? Oh!, yes, I remember
it was when they were telling us that our phone modems would never break
the 34Kbs theoretical barrier.

You can come up with yeahbut, nobut, that isn't what it meant, they
found a way to use the phone lines differently. But this also applies to
your objections to WiFi. There are different ways of doing things.

I hear we already have home access points with directional beam-forming,
to overcome one of your objections.

> No way are you going to get gigabit speeds over the frequencies
> allocated for wifi.
>

A very bold statement, given the speed I see from my crappy mobile
phone. I think in my home LAN they could do faster.
I think RJH summed it up: wired, or fibre, is better, but we only need
good enough. We don't need infinite bandwidth, WiFi is very close to
delivering all that we need.

On 22/02/2024 21:45, Scott wrote:
> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
> work? All assistance appreciated.

A normal CAT5E (decent quality all copper[1] fully wired) patch lead
will work just fine. There will not be any advantage to using a higher
spec cable, it will just be more expensive and harder to route / dress
nicely since it will be stiffer and require a larger bend radius.

[1] Avoid ones that are CCA (Copper Clad Aluminium) or CCS (Copper Clad
Steel)

A connection to a network switch (i.e. that built into the router) and a
PC requires a normal "straight through" wired lead.

(There was a time that you might need a "crossover" cable when
connecting one PC directly to another without a switch or hub between
them, but most modern Ethernet kit will automatically configure as
required, making crossover cables mostly redundant).

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 23/02/2024 09:35, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:13:18 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
>>
>> No, cat5 ill be fine ...
>
> Thanks. One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
> ethernet cable?

A patch lead is typically an Ethernet cable built using a RJ45 at each
end and using more flexible stranded wires in the cable.

An "Ethernet cable" is a more generic term, and could include patch
leads as well as the typical solid core CAT cables used for building
wiring. It could even include archaic cables like 50 Ohm Co-Ax as was
once used for 10 Mbps Ethernet

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>
>
> Plan for 1G in the future.

Short of really cheaping out and buying a 4 wire patch lead, you would
be hard pushed to find something that does not support 1 gig.

> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>
> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>
> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M, but
> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a nightmare.
>

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 23/02/2024 14:16, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 13:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Well if you want to go back to insecure congested local area
>> networking, be my guest
>>
>> I suggest you also study Shannon's law.
>>
>
> Shannon, Shannon? Where have I heard that before?? Oh!, yes, I remember
> it was when they were telling us that our phone modems would never break
> the 34Kbs theoretical barrier.

Actually predicts the maximum throughput achievable with a 3kHz
bandwidth channel in the presence of noise. Modems using the audio
channel in both directions with normal SNR levels never exceeded its
predictions.

56k modems "circumvented" the limitation in one direction by keeping the
signal mostly digital for the bulk of the path, and doing one final D to
A conversion at the last minute. This improved the overall SNR in one
direction. The result still being in line with what the Shannon channel
capacity predicts for the line with a better SNR).

> You can come up with yeahbut, nobut, that isn't what it meant, they
> found a way to use the phone lines differently. But this also applies to
> your objections to WiFi. There are different ways of doing things.

There are, and wifi has improved immeasurably. However it is still a
broadcast technology, and its performance will vary based on a whole
host of parameters that you have little or no control over.

> I hear we already have home access points with directional beam-forming,
> to overcome one of your objections.

Yup, a standard part of WiFi 6 (aka 802.11ax)

>> No way are you going to get gigabit speeds over the frequencies
>> allocated for wifi.

Gb+ over wifi is certainly doable. In fact WiFi 5 (802.11ac) has shown
real world speeds over 1 Gbps in real world applications. 802.11ax will
do better (2x) than that in the right circumstances.

> A very bold statement, given the speed I see from my crappy mobile
> phone. I think in my home LAN they could do faster.
> I think RJH summed it up: wired, or fibre, is better, but we only need
> good enough. We don't need infinite bandwidth, WiFi is very close to
> delivering all that we need.

Speed wise it can be good enough, but there is more to consider than speed.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 23/02/2024 13:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 13:32, alan_m wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>>
>>
>> Isn't there already problems in a office environment with contention?
>>
> One of my hospitals has at leats 15 wifi nodes visible on a scanner
> .
> Shannon tells us that maximum bit rate is bandwidth times signal to
> noise. When you are essentially not using dish aerials you are
> broadcasting power to every place it *might* be needed.

Not necessarily the case with the latest kit which uses multiple
antennas in a phased array configuration. That allows directional beam
forming for links with client devices.

This makes more effective use of spectrum and transmit power in
congested (RF) spaces.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 23/02/2024 14:16, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 13:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 11:30, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>>>>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet
>>>>>>> cable.
>>>>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps.
>>>>>>> Does it
>>>>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also,
>>>>>>> can I
>>>>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a
>>>>>> nightmare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>
>>>>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
>>>>> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but
>>>>> wireless is getting very impressive.
>>>>
>>>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>>>
>>>
>>> This from a man who has a 100Mb/s LAN?
>>>
>>> My point was that in the past, wireless was shit, it had slow speeds,
>>> poor range, high latency, and random disconnections. So you wanted
>>> every important device wired to the LAN.
>>>
>>> Nowadays you can have many cooperating Wi-Fi access points in the
>>> home. In mine they are wired together, but I find myself not
>>> bothering to wire in new devices like TV/HTPCs.
>>>
>>> Eventually I think the need for wires will disappear. So planning for
>>> the future is YAGNI.
>>>
>>>
>> Well if you want to go back to insecure congested local area
>> networking, be my guest
>>
>> I suggest you also study Shannon's law.
>>
>
> Shannon, Shannon? Where have I heard that before?? Oh!, yes, I remember
> it was when they were telling us that our phone modems would never break
> the 34Kbs theoretical barrier.
>
> You can come up with yeahbut, nobut, that isn't what it meant, they
> found a way to use the phone lines differently. But this also applies to
> your objections to WiFi. There are different ways of doing things.
>
> I hear we already have home access points with directional beam-forming,
> to overcome one of your objections.
>
>> No way are you going to get gigabit speeds over the frequencies
>> allocated for wifi.
>>
>
> A very bold statement, given the speed I see from my crappy mobile
> phone. I think in my home LAN they could do faster.
> I think RJH summed it up: wired, or fibre, is better, but we only need
> good enough. We don't need infinite bandwidth, WiFi is very close to
> delivering all that we need.

As I said, if reliability, power effciency, security and speed are not
an issue for you, use Wifi.

The lazy man's networking...

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 23/02/2024 10:00, Chris Green wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:13:18 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead?
>>>
>>> No, cat5 ill be fine ...
>>
>> Thanks. One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
>> ethernet cable?
>
> Yes
>

No. Installed cat5e normally has solid cores, while patch
cables ?should have multi-stranded cores.

If you fitting your own connectors, I believe there are
different crimp types for solid or stranded.

If you are just buying a 10 mtr patch cable and not
bothering with a 'proper' installation with a cat5e
wall box at each end (so 2 short patch cables needed)
then you don't need to be aware of the difference.

Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> If you fitting your own connectors, I believe there are
> different crimp types for solid or stranded.
>
Yes, and I've never found an easy way to work out which is which!

--
Chris Green
·

On 23/02/2024 15:22, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks. One supplementary please: is a patch lead the same as an
>>> ethernet cable?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>
> No. Installed cat5e normally has solid cores, while patch
> cables ?should have multi-stranded cores.
>
+1

> If you fitting your own connectors, I believe there are
> different crimp types for solid or stranded.
>
And, worse still, several different makes of connectors that need
different tools to work.
Back in the day when patch cables cost a fiver each we made our own. Not
any more.

> If you are just buying a 10 mtr patch cable and not
> bothering with a 'proper' installation with a cat5e
> wall box at each end (so 2 short patch cables needed)
> then you don't need to be aware of the difference.

+2
House wiring is solid core. flex cable is used where it needs to flex!
--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:48:51 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> One of my hospitals has at leats 15 wifi nodes visible on a scanner
> .

My netbook can see 12-16 from my house, though most are too low to be
of use, and my mobile phone can only see three or four of them.

Things have improved. I was asked to connect about 8 PCs in a new office
by wifi about twenty years ago. I gave up after about two weeks, there
was no possible way to keep that many links working continuously. It
was a low-rise office park, only three other companies in the same
building, and two other similar buildings fifty metres or so apart.
What was odd was that I couldn't see obvious interference sources, the
company actually had a portable spectrum analyser.

After two weeks I started pulling up floor tiles and taping bits of
curtain rod together...

--
Joe

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 23:57:43 +1100, HVS <office@removethiswhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 23 Feb 2024, Pancho wrote
>
>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet
>>>> cable. Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100
>>>> Mbps. Does it matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8
>>>> patch lead? Also, can I assume that for a new router and
>>>> relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would work? All assistance
>>>> appreciated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>
>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>
>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>
>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only
>>> 100M, but ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would
>>> be a nightmare.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>
>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in
>> most circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but
>> wireless is getting very impressive.
>
> I'm sure you're right, and agree wireless is getting very impressive,
> but (switches on "old guy mode"), I still feel happier when I've got
> cables running between stuff - internet, printer, keyboard, mouse -
> than when it's wireless.

But there is no good reason for that.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 00:27:39 +1100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/23/2024 6:30 AM, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 09:55, Pancho wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2024 09:35, Brian wrote:
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet
>>>>>> cable.
>>>>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Plan for 1G in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wired our house over the years - starting in about 1997.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only just got (nearly) 1G fibre.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, I needed to change some of the hardware which was only 100M,
>>>>> but
>>>>> ripping out the wiring to replace with 1G capable would be a
>>>>> nightmare.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if there is a future of wired.
>>>>
>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>>> People say wired is better than wireless, and that was true in most
>>>> circumstances, and is still true in some circumstances, but wireless
>>>> is getting very impressive.
>>>
>>> Wifi cant do an unlimited number of 1GB peer to peer connections
>>>
>>
>> This from a man who has a 100Mb/s LAN?
>>
>> My point was that in the past, wireless was shit, it had slow speeds,
>> poor range, high latency, and random disconnections. So you wanted
>> every important device wired to the LAN.
>>
>> Nowadays you can have many cooperating Wi-Fi access points in the home.
>> In mine they are wired together, but I find myself not bothering to
>> wire in new devices like TV/HTPCs.
>>
>> Eventually I think the need for wires will disappear. So planning for
>> the future is YAGNI.
>
> The wired offerings might go like this. At some point, the cards either
> have modules
> that allow selecting wired or fibre, or it is fibre-module-only. The
> 10GbE is still a wired one.
>
> 100 BT <=== You can still occasionally find new kit with this!
> 1 GbE
> 2.5 GbE <=== RealTek, new build motherboards have this
> 10 GbE <=== AQuantic (Marvell) AQC107 wired output (addin card, or
> soldered to motherboard)
>
> 100 GbE <=== Used cards on Ebay or whatever
> 400 GbE <=== What your ISP has now
>
> Generally, you want a switch, a higher speed one,
> situated off a LAN port on the router. So even if your
> broadband rate was 100, the machines could connect at 1000 to each other
> (the GbE type).
>
> 100 100 1000
> BB ---- router ----- switch --- \
> --- \___ 4 ports, high speed between
> machines in the room
> --- /
> --- /
>
> When you get the whizzy fibre package, now the router needs to be better.
> You do that, so a single computer can use the entire link bandwidth
> (for the bandwidth test, to impress your friends). The switch could
> continue to be used. It really all depends on what exact rates come from
> the fibre (some providers pick nasty rates just to annoy you).
> Like making the ONT run at 1500 or 3000, is just meanness.
>
> 1000 1000 1000
> Fibre ----- router ------ switch --- \
> --- \___ 4 ports, also available as 8
> port boxes
> --- /
> --- /
>
> The best fibre offered right now, is from Google in Kansas City,
> and uses a 20 Gbit/sec ONT module of some sort. We don't know
> what rate that really offers, as they only got the optics modules,
> to cover a "range" of broadband services. There may not be
> sufficient upstream bandwidth for that rate to be "real" in a sense.
>
> If you were to put AQuantic cards in the four PCs, it is not the expense
> at the PC level that's interesting, it's the cost of the switch and
> who has silicon for that application. Once you get close to "commercial"
> bandwidth levels, the air is let out of your tyres. And of course,
> your friends will ask you why you think you need that (1250MB/sec).
>
> 1000 1000 10000
> Fibre ----- router ------ switch ---- \
> ---- \___ 4 ports (could easily be
> 500+ for switch)
> ---- /
> ---- /
>
> That's why some might opt for a cheaper setup.
>
> 1000 1000 1000 10000
> Fibre ----- router ------ switch --------- PC - AQuantic ---+ High
> speed between
> --- | just two
> particular machines
> --- | 1250
> MB/sec p2p
> --------- PC - AQuantic ---+
>
> Anything faster than that would be fun, but then the computer
> guts need to be more expensive, to get the slots for the hardware.
> There is one motherboard with seven x16 slots in it, but it
> might be 1200 or so, instead of the usual 200 for a home build.

> The best wireless, is 60GHz WiGiG at 700MB/sec at a distance
> of about 10 feet or so. And no signal goes further than 25 feet,
> and the signal refuses to leave the room (whether the door frame
> is wood or metal).

> Wifi is already out of steam, compared to an AQC107 wired.

But wifi works fine for everything in your house
except for some exceptional circumstances.

> The "other" Wifi, the heavily marketed stuff, is asymptotic
> and keeps offering people 100MB/sec in their room, no matter
> what new constellation they claim the latest one uses.

> In an anechoic chamber, I bet the new Wifi is bloody amazing :-)
> When they have done testing like that, they use RF absorptive matting,
> because the signal is too strong otherwise.

> This is 4096 QAM or a 32x32 I-Q display. The latest wireless might
> be max 1024 QAM. Using QAM is a diminishing return, as in an urban
> setting, the noise level is just too high to expect stuff like this
> to keep scaling. It's more fun to watch the dynamic display output
> showing one of the older (smaller) QAM matricies, as you watch the
> decision
> maker ("slicer") adjust for DC offset on the two axis, plus identify
> what the
> likely bit pattern is that some thing has transmitted. Denser schemes
> need DSP and error correction, to achieve a result. A Google search
> got me no videos (so I "must be using the wrong keyword"). The video
> of one of these, is much more interesting than a static display. It
> just doesn't get across the chaos in there :-)
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Different_views_showing_a_QAM_4096_constellation_diagram.jpg
>
> What will Wifi offer us in the future ? A higher version number ??? :-)
> OK.
>
> Technology to the rescue I guess. But FSO was already done.
>
> https://www.androidauthority.com/light-wireless-technology-3345477/
>
> "While the potential for Li-Fi is exciting, it’s important to stay
> grounded for now.
>
> the release of the new IEEE 802.11bb standard is a big step forward.
> "
>
> Like solid state lithium batteries I suppose.
>
> Paul

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 06:18:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rodent Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID: <69uiid1ftof4m6jgmssv8idijehq341qv3@4ax.com>

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 06:12:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
pamela about Rodent Speed:
"His off the cuff expertise demonstrates how little he knows..."
MID: <XnsA90B720A381A2D4AM2@81.171.92.183>

On 23/02/2024 14:27, John Rumm wrote:
> On 22/02/2024 21:45, Scott wrote:
>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>
> A normal CAT5E (decent quality all copper[1] fully wired) patch lead
> will work just fine. There will not be any advantage to using a higher
> spec cable, it will just be more expensive and harder to route / dress
> nicely since it will be stiffer and require a larger bend radius.

I have used standard unbranded Cat 5 or Cat 6 flat cable that is 15 m
long. I've have data transfer speeds of around 300 Mbit/sec between a
Windows PC and an Raspberry Pi at opposite ends of the cable, measured
for a SAMBA \\server\sharename\file.ts file copy of a large (eg 1 GB)
file. That's for Ethernet adaptors which claim to be 1 Gbps.

A raw transfer, without also testing access to an HDD that is connected
by USB to the Pi, would probably be even faster.

Flat cable has the big advantage over circular cross-section that it can
be tucked between the edge of a carpet and a skirting board, under the
metal strip in a doorway that divides one room;s carpet from another or
even under the carpet, especially near the gripper rod where it's
unlikely to get walked on.

On 24/02/2024 00:17, NY wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 14:27, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 22/02/2024 21:45, Scott wrote:
>>> I am planning to connect my PC to the router using an ethernet cable.
>>> Length required is 10 metres. My broadband speed is 100 Mbps. Does it
>>> matter whether I buy a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 8 patch lead? Also, can I
>>> assume that for a new router and relatively new PC, RJ45 to RJ45 would
>>> work? All assistance appreciated.
>>
>> A normal CAT5E (decent quality all copper[1] fully wired) patch lead
>> will work just fine. There will not be any advantage to using a higher
>> spec cable, it will just be more expensive and harder to route / dress
>> nicely since it will be stiffer and require a larger bend radius.
>
> I have used standard unbranded Cat 5 or Cat 6 flat cable that is 15 m
> long. I've have data transfer speeds of around 300 Mbit/sec between a
> Windows PC and an Raspberry Pi at opposite ends of the cable, measured
> for a SAMBA \\server\sharename\file.ts file copy of a large (eg 1 GB)
> file. That's for Ethernet adaptors which claim to be 1 Gbps.

Ethernet speeds on most Pis are fairly unremarkable - those with gig lan
ports can't drive them to full capacity.

> A raw transfer, without also testing access to an HDD that is connected
> by USB to the Pi, would probably be even faster.
>
>
> Flat cable has the big advantage over circular cross-section that it can
> be tucked between the edge of a carpet and a skirting board, under the
> metal strip in a doorway that divides one room;s carpet from another or
> even under the carpet, especially near the gripper rod where it's
> unlikely to get walked on.

Yup it can be useful, although it does not meet the ethernet specs - so
you will be more limited in cable length.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

NY wrote:

> Flat cable has the big advantage over circular cross-section that it can
> be tucked between the edge of a carpet and a skirting board

I have used slim cables made by rhino, under 1/10th of an inch, useful
to feed an ethernet, rj11 and wallwart cable through a braided sleeve to
a deskphone ...

<https://amazon.co.uk/slim-cat6/dp/B07Y3L21G4>

On 24/02/2024 08:06, Andy Burns wrote:
> NY wrote:
>
>> Flat cable has the big advantage over circular cross-section that it
>> can be tucked between the edge of a carpet and a skirting board
>
> I have used slim cables made by rhino,  under 1/10th of an inch, useful
> to feed an ethernet, rj11 and wallwart cable through a braided sleeve to
> a deskphone ...
>
> <https://amazon.co.uk/slim-cat6/dp/B07Y3L21G4>
>
>
Be aware that attenuation with length will be much higher: you might get
issues over 10m.

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I have used slim cables made by rhino,  under 1/10th of an inch
>> <https://amazon.co.uk/slim-cat6/dp/B07Y3L21G4>
>
> Be aware that attenuation with length will be much higher: you might get
> issues over 10m.
Sure, they only sell them up to 3m

On 24/02/2024 03:46, John Rumm wrote:

>> I have used standard unbranded Cat 5 or Cat 6 flat cable that is 15 m
>> long. I've have data transfer speeds of around 300 Mbit/sec between a
>> Windows PC and an Raspberry Pi at opposite ends of the cable, measured
>> for a SAMBA \\server\sharename\file.ts file copy of a large (eg 1 GB)
>> file. That's for Ethernet adaptors which claim to be 1 Gbps.
>
> Ethernet speeds on most Pis are fairly unremarkable - those with gig lan
> ports can't drive them to full capacity.
>

The rPi4 and rPi5 do have full gig, I use an rPi4 for NAS. The real life
speed on my LAN is something like 900 Mb/s. This translates directly to
disk transfer speeds.

There was model rPi3b+ which had a gigabit nic, but could only drive it
at about 200 Mb/s, something about being connected via USB2. A normal
rPi3b was 100 Mb/s.

On 23/02/2024 15:01, John Rumm wrote:

>
> There are, and wifi has improved immeasurably. However it is still a
> broadcast technology, and its performance will vary based on a whole
> host of parameters that you have little or no control over.
>

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I do have control.

I was talking about WiFi for a home LAN. The signals are weak, stopped
by a few walls. I get very little interference from neighbours, maybe it
is different in a flat?, but I thought WiFi 6 was designed to address
those concerns. Not having congestion problems in the first place, I'm
happy with WiFi 5.

I'm not sure what else is beyond my control?

On 24/02/2024 10:58, Pancho wrote:
> On 24/02/2024 03:46, John Rumm wrote:
>
>>> I have used standard unbranded Cat 5 or Cat 6 flat cable that is 15 m
>>> long. I've have data transfer speeds of around 300 Mbit/sec between a
>>> Windows PC and an Raspberry Pi at opposite ends of the cable,
>>> measured for a SAMBA \\server\sharename\file.ts file copy of a large
>>> (eg 1 GB) file. That's for Ethernet adaptors which claim to be 1 Gbps.
>>
>> Ethernet speeds on most Pis are fairly unremarkable - those with gig
>> lan ports can't drive them to full capacity.
>>
>
> The rPi4 and rPi5 do have full gig, I use an rPi4 for NAS. The real life
> speed on my LAN is something like 900 Mb/s. This translates directly to
> disk transfer speeds.
>
> There was model rPi3b+ which had a gigabit nic, but could only drive it
> at about 200 Mb/s, something about being connected via USB2. A normal
> rPi3b was 100 Mb/s.
>
>
+1.

Pis are being uprated according to what people want. NAS is one large
niche and gigabit ethernet and fast disk interfaces are what's wanted.

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 24/02/2024 11:06, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 15:01, John Rumm wrote:
>
>>
>> There are, and wifi has improved immeasurably. However it is still a
>> broadcast technology, and its performance will vary based on a whole
>> host of parameters that you have little or no control over.
>>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I do have control.

> I was talking about WiFi for a home LAN. The signals are weak, stopped
> by a few walls. I get very little interference from neighbours, maybe it
> is different in a flat?, but I thought WiFi 6 was designed to address
> those concerns.

Yes, Wifi 6 is designed to cope with congested airspace better than
previous versions.

> Not having congestion problems in the first place, I'm
> happy with WiFi 5.
>
> I'm not sure what else is beyond my control?

Weather, and humidity - will effect range and performance.

What kit is installed by surrounding neighbours - you need to share
spectrum with them.

Wifi interference installed by neighbours - their dodgy microwave will
hit performance on your network.

Can you prevent your WLAN signal spilling out of your property? Or stop
someone cloning the SSID, and setting up a duplicate network to capture
the credentials of a device that thinks it is connecting to your
network? i.e. WLAN has security implications that wired networks don't.
Even if an attacker can't connect or snoop on it directly, the meta data
contained in analysis of the traffic patterns may disclose useful
information.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/