How long - Lan Cable ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by NZed, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. NZed

    NZed Guest

    I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
    max length I can run without having to run a booster ?

    NZed
    NZed, Dec 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
    scrawl:

    > I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
    > max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
    >

    Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
    metres.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Dec 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NZed

    NZed Guest

    Thanks Mathew for the reply.
    Pardon my ignorance ...whats a cat5 cable ?
    Is this a standard Lan cable ?
    NZed

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    > > I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats

    the
    > > max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
    > >

    > Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
    > metres.
    >
    > --
    > Matthew Poole
    > "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    >
    NZed, Dec 2, 2005
    #3
  4. THN
    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
    > scrawl:
    >
    >> I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
    >> max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
    >>

    > Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
    > metres.


    See: http://www.theheadwaters.com/cables/faq.htm

    And from this:

    For Solid UTP:
    Fast Ethernet 100baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
    Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)

    Recommended maximum lengths for Patch Cables made from stranded cable:
    Fast Ethernet 100baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
    Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)

    Ie they recommend you use solid core cable for runs longer than 10 meters

    Thanks
    Craig
    Craig Whitmore, Dec 2, 2005
    #4
  5. NZed

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Craig Whitmore wrote:
    > THN
    > "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    >>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
    >>scrawl:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
    >>>max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
    >>>

    >>
    >>Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
    >>metres.

    >
    >
    > See: http://www.theheadwaters.com/cables/faq.htm
    >
    > And from this:
    >
    > For Solid UTP:
    > Fast Ethernet 100baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
    > Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
    >
    > Recommended maximum lengths for Patch Cables made from stranded cable:
    > Fast Ethernet 100baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
    > Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
    >
    > Ie they recommend you use solid core cable for runs longer than 10 meters


    From the same site:

    CAT5 is rated to 100M
    CAT5e is rated to 350M

    Which surprises me - I thought that the 100m limit was a timing issue,
    not an electrical performance issue. Or does the 350m limit only apply
    if using CAT5e *and* gigabit ethernet?
    -=rjh=-, Dec 2, 2005
    #5
  6. NZed

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:30:04 +1300, -=rjh=- <>
    exclaimed:

    >Craig Whitmore wrote:
    >> THN
    >> "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
    >>>scrawl:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
    >>>>max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
    >>>metres.

    >>
    >>
    >> See: http://www.theheadwaters.com/cables/faq.htm
    >>
    >> And from this:
    >>
    >> For Solid UTP:
    >> Fast Ethernet 100baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
    >> Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
    >>
    >> Recommended maximum lengths for Patch Cables made from stranded cable:
    >> Fast Ethernet 100baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
    >> Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
    >>
    >> Ie they recommend you use solid core cable for runs longer than 10 meters

    >
    > From the same site:
    >
    >CAT5 is rated to 100M
    >CAT5e is rated to 350M
    >
    >Which surprises me - I thought that the 100m limit was a timing issue,
    >not an electrical performance issue. Or does the 350m limit only apply
    >if using CAT5e *and* gigabit ethernet?


    Quite the opposite, I believe.

    I'm pretty sure Gigabit over Cat5e has a shorter max distance than
    10/100.
    Fred Dagg, Dec 2, 2005
    #6
  7. > From the same site:
    >
    > CAT5 is rated to 100M
    > CAT5e is rated to 350M
    >

    M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet

    Thanks
    Craig
    Craig Whitmore, Dec 3, 2005
    #7
  8. NZed

    Bret Guest

    On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:04:07 +1300, "Craig Whitmore"
    <> wrote:

    >> From the same site:
    >>
    >> CAT5 is rated to 100M
    >> CAT5e is rated to 350M
    >>

    > M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet
    >


    I think it means metres ?
    Bret, Dec 3, 2005
    #8
  9. NZed

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Bret wrote:
    > On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:04:07 +1300, "Craig Whitmore"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>From the same site:
    >>>
    >>>CAT5 is rated to 100M
    >>>CAT5e is rated to 350M
    >>>

    >>
    >>M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet
    >>

    >
    >
    > I think it means metres ?
    >


    No, Craig is correct - my mistake, though the site probably could have
    made it clearer.
    -=rjh=-, Dec 3, 2005
    #9
  10. NZed

    Gordon Guest

    On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:17:50 +1300, NZed wrote:

    > Thanks Mathew for the reply.
    > Pardon my ignorance ...whats a cat5 cable ?
    > Is this a standard Lan cable ?


    Standard ng posting is bottom.

    Cat5 is rated to 100MB/s
    Gordon, Dec 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Gordon wrote:
    > Cat5 is rated to 100MB/s


    No it isn't. It's rated to 100Mb/s.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Dec 3, 2005
    #11
  12. NZed

    David Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > Bret wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:04:07 +1300, "Craig Whitmore"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> From the same site:
    >>>>
    >>>> CAT5 is rated to 100M
    >>>> CAT5e is rated to 350M
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> I think it means metres ?
    >>

    >
    > No, Craig is correct - my mistake, though the site probably could have
    > made it clearer.


    Hehe, its both
    David, Dec 3, 2005
    #12
  13. In <> NZed wrote:

    > Thanks Mathew for the reply.
    > Pardon my ignorance ...whats a cat5 cable ?
    > Is this a standard Lan cable ?
    > NZed


    Cat 5 is an abbreviation for category 5 unshielded twisted pair (UTP)
    cable, as used for modern Ethernet cabling.

    The various UTP categories were set out by a standards body so everyone
    can just say 'category 5' instead of having to say 'unshielded twisted
    pair cable, four pairs, 100 ohms impedance, meets Ethernet requirements
    for transmission at up to 100 megahertz'.

    Category 3 and 4 cables are suitable for the slower 10Base-T Ethernet.
    Category 5e is 'enhanced category 5', an interim specification for
    1000Base-T (gigabit Ethernet), although category 6 cables are now
    available.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://roger.geek.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
    Roger Johnstone, Dec 3, 2005
    #13
  14. NZed

    -=rjh=- Guest

    David wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >> Bret wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:04:07 +1300, "Craig Whitmore"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> From the same site:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> CAT5 is rated to 100M
    >>>>> CAT5e is rated to 350M
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I think it means metres ?
    >>>

    >>
    >> No, Craig is correct - my mistake, though the site probably could have
    >> made it clearer.

    >
    >
    > Hehe, its both


    Nope; m = metres, m = 10^-3, M = 10^6
    -=rjh=-, Dec 3, 2005
    #14
  15. NZed

    thingy Guest

    NZed wrote:
    > I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
    > max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
    >
    > NZed
    >
    >


    100m officially.

    but 150m could be possible depends on interference., plus you can do
    power over ethernet.

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Dec 3, 2005
    #15
  16. NZed

    EMB Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > 100m officially.
    >
    > but 150m could be possible depends on interference.


    No - depends on timing.

    --
    EMB
    EMB, Dec 3, 2005
    #16
  17. NZed

    David Guest

    EMB wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >
    >> 100m officially.
    >>
    >> but 150m could be possible depends on interference.

    >
    >
    > No - depends on timing.
    >

    So what are the options for longer runs? Would you need a hub/switch? Or
    is optical fibre more cost effective/better?
    David, Dec 4, 2005
    #17
  18. > So what are the options for longer runs? Would you need a hub/switch? Or
    > is optical fibre more cost effective/better?


    You could put a switch in between the 2 pieces of ethernet, but there is a
    limit of the number of switches/hubs you can "string together".
    You could use UTP->Fibre convertors and then depending what you get.. the
    fibre can go quite a number of Km

    Thanks
    Craig
    Craig Whitmore, Dec 4, 2005
    #18
  19. Craig Whitmore wrote:
    >>So what are the options for longer runs? Would you need a hub/switch? Or
    >>is optical fibre more cost effective/better?

    >
    >
    > You could put a switch in between the 2 pieces of ethernet, but there is a
    > limit of the number of switches/hubs you can "string together".
    > You could use UTP->Fibre convertors and then depending what you get.. the
    > fibre can go quite a number of Km
    >
    > Thanks
    > Craig
    >
    >

    Km yes, but dont forget the cost. Fibre and converters are expensive still.

    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
    *Slow day Posts Blog*
    Pictorial Amusement from the web at http://nzcollector.blogspot.com
    Collector»NZ, Dec 4, 2005
    #19
  20. On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:26:40 +1300, someone purporting to be Collector»NZ
    didst scrawl:

    > Craig Whitmore wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > Km yes, but dont forget the cost. Fibre and converters are expensive still.


    Fibre is dirt cheap. Dramatically cheaper than copper, and has been for
    several years. The expense is in the terminating equipment.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
    Matthew Poole, Dec 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom D
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,250
    Tom D
    Jan 24, 2005
  2. Sharqy_5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,929
    Sharqy_5
    Jul 20, 2003
  3. blaj

    lan-to-lan vpn over adsl

    blaj, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    781
  4. stretch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,149
    stretch
    Jan 21, 2004
  5. AM
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    781
Loading...

Share This Page