Faster net over long distances...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenneth
  • Start date Start date
K

Kenneth

Howdy,

I have two systems that are about 600 feet apart.

They are currently connected by (and forgive me if I don't
have the proper name) "light Ethernet cable", or "thin coax"
with BNC fittings running underground between two buildings.

This cable was chosen over Cat 5 because of the distance.

As currently configured, the net between these two systems
runs at 10 Mbps and that generates a few questions:

Are there faster alternatives in our situation? Are there
faster alternatives that could run over the same cable?

Specifically, might our current speed limitation be caused
by the cards we use?

For example, might there be cards available that use BNC
fittings but run at higher speeds?

Sincere thanks for any suggestions about this,
 
Howdy,

I have two systems that are about 600 feet apart.

They are currently connected by (and forgive me if I don't
have the proper name) "light Ethernet cable", or "thin coax"
with BNC fittings running underground between two buildings.

This cable was chosen over Cat 5 because of the distance.

As currently configured, the net between these two systems
runs at 10 Mbps and that generates a few questions:

Are there faster alternatives in our situation? Are there
faster alternatives that could run over the same cable?

Specifically, might our current speed limitation be caused
by the cards we use?

For example, might there be cards available that use BNC
fittings but run at higher speeds?

Sincere thanks for any suggestions about this,
Click to expand...

Hi again,

Our cabling is 10-Base-2...

Thanks,
 
Then you're capped.

Consider running a fiber link between buildings...
Click to expand...

Howdy,

Could you say a bit more?

I am not locked in to our present cabling. Were we to run
fiber, could we get higher speeds? I would consider another
form of cabling if we could up the speed considerably
without insane costs.

Thanks for any further comments,
 
Kenneth said:
Howdy,

Could you say a bit more?

I am not locked in to our present cabling. Were we to run
fiber, could we get higher speeds? I would consider another
form of cabling if we could up the speed considerably
without insane costs.

Thanks for any further comments,
Click to expand...

You might want to look into getting a book that discusses the difference
between fiber and copper. It all depends on your needs, current setup, and
investment.
 
BTW, you can get 1000ft Cat6(1Gb) for under 100$.
Click to expand...

Hello again,

Yes, but I can get 1000ft of nylon fishing line for even
less <g>.

You have not mentioned if Cat6 can be used for the distance
I need.

Thanks,
 
Then you're capped.

Consider running a fiber link between buildings...
Click to expand...


So what is the cost ? The minimal kit will be"

- Fiber, what is the lowest-spec fibre that will handle ethernet at
interesting speeds. You need a pair (one for TXm another for RX)

What's the correct name for this product and what's the cost/foot ?

- A pair of fibre to UTP ethernet media converters that take the fiber
pair and convert it to an RK54 jack I can patch into my router.

I know this will require a router at each end of the connection.
 
Howdy,

I have two systems that are about 600 feet apart.

They are currently connected by (and forgive me if I don't
have the proper name) "light Ethernet cable", or "thin coax"
with BNC fittings running underground between two buildings.

This cable was chosen over Cat 5 because of the distance.

As currently configured, the net between these two systems
runs at 10 Mbps and that generates a few questions:

Are there faster alternatives in our situation? Are there
faster alternatives that could run over the same cable?

Specifically, might our current speed limitation be caused
by the cards we use?

For example, might there be cards available that use BNC
fittings but run at higher speeds?

Sincere thanks for any suggestions about this,
Click to expand...


This is a recurring discussion in comp.dcom.cabling.

Running anything but fiber between buildings is a no-no due to saftey
grounding and lightning issues.
 
lmao!

Hello again,

Yes, but I can get 1000ft of nylon fishing line for even
less <g>.

You have not mentioned if Cat6 can be used for the distance
I need.
Click to expand...

No, not even close...

/daytripper
 
So what is the cost ? The minimal kit will be"

- Fiber, what is the lowest-spec fibre that will handle ethernet at
interesting speeds. You need a pair (one for TXm another for RX)

What's the correct name for this product and what's the cost/foot ?

- A pair of fibre to UTP ethernet media converters that take the fiber
pair and convert it to an RK54 jack I can patch into my router.

I know this will require a router at each end of the connection.
Click to expand...

No, it won't require routers at each end. It will require media converters at
both ends, and something to plug those into at each end.

But unless the OP wants the "far" end of the fiber to be a separate subnet,
those "somethings" would be simple switches.

No big deal...

/daytripper
 
Kenneth said:
Hello again,

Yes, but I can get 1000ft of nylon fishing line for even
less <g>.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you could try to run that? ;)
You have not mentioned if Cat6 can be used for the distance
I need.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

http://www.datacottage.com/nch/questions.htm

600ft is about 200m... The distance is only a factor in error rate. 600ft
isn' t that far(just look at DSL and cable)... The problem tends to be that
the longer the line is, the less efficient it becomes... so, dependingon
your needs, it can be acceptable. I was proposing you look into running a
Gb ethernet, and even if you have only 10% efficiently, thats 100Mb/s...

I don't know the exact results, but its possible it will work out just fine.
There are several issues with copper and fiber that you should look into for
your specific needs. I would imagine fiber would be the best option(since
you wouldn't have to upgrade the line as much(like you do with copper). The
problem with fiber is that its very delicate and can easily become fractured
at one point and destory 100's of feet of it. So it will all depend on your
needs... Possibly what you could do is run both cable types and use only the
Cat 6/E initally and if that is not acceptiable, you could then switch over
to fiber(a waste of about 100$ bucks for the Cat6 wire(you can return the
equipment used) or you could use it for something else(as maybe a backup
just incase the fiber goes out)...


Though, I seriously doubt you would need fiber unless you want it. The
transmission loss in Cat6 over 600ft should not be that bad.... at the very
least you could use a repeater. I believe Cat 6 is rated at 100m? So your
half way there.... Ofcourse I'm not saying you will get optimal results,
just that you will get something... 100m "rule" isn't perfect.

Its up to you... I don't know your situation. Fiber is probably the most
cost effective in the long run(assuming you don't have to replace it), but
Cat6 could actually be easier to install and setup with your existiting
equipment.
 
I haven't buit a fiber system myself but a quick look on ebay and elsewhere
suggests it wouldn't cost much to experiment. A couple of media converters
and the fibre could probably be had for < $200. Seems easy enough to build a
100Mbit link. Run it overground to test it before investing ten times that
amount digging a trench.
 
Back
Top