Just for umm... personal use I'll have to look around for a repeater then... how many would I need for 5000ft ? or is there an alternative to cat5, but something that can stil also be used for networking ?
The 100 meter Cat5 specification is not a magical "it stops working here" number. It is, however the a very good length to use to determine maximum length. This number, when used properly, should take into account cable length and internal wiring distance of your equipment. (I suspect that is the reason that many use a 300 ft. rule of thumb, which is about 10% less than the 100 meter spec.)
Regarding amplification, hubs can amplify line signals, but have two drawbacks: 1) they amplify everything: signal, bad signal and noise and 2) they introduce signal latency.
At longer cable lengths you will be fighting line noise, poor signal quality and signal latency.
5000ft, that is almost a mile! For this you would need to run fibre.
What are you doing that you need 5000 ft....
if you were to run Cat5e, you would need 17 repeaters. I am not sure that it would even work after that many repeaters. There are 2 different kinds of repeaters, the cheap ones repeat everything signal and noise, the more expensive receive the signal and then re-generate the signal....
yeah guess its not going to be cat5 then,,, but i did see something before it was optics but not glass it was plastic cheap and fast so ill have look for that instead cuz 17 repeaters is way to many its going to "maybe" be a i dunno what to call it but it will have 10-15 houses connected to it and one server i guess will be a gateway fot them all to have some high speed internet... its a rural area so since these ppl will be paying the server will have dual satelitte connections 1mega byte/sec down * 500kilo byte/sec up in total so they should be gettung @least 100kb/sec down which is a lot better than 5.6kb/sec lol also im going to need to know how to set this up if anyone can help... i know how to do allthe hardware and stuff its just the logging on/off of the ppl on the server so i can get the exact amout of time/bandwith the use on the net.
If you're up for spending loads of $$$, look into Cisco's LRE (long reach ethernet) equipment. I'm fairly sure that based on SNR (signal to noise ratio) it's got an effective range of about 5000 feet with Category 1/2/3 wiring with effective speeds of 5 to 15 megabit.
Where is this place located? I may know of a consulting company that can help you out. Shoot me a pm and we can talk.
Ethernet follows what is known as the 5-4-3 rule...
3 populated segments (only an issue with coax ThinNet and ThickNet)
anything over 4 repeaters introduces what's known as propogation delay. You'll get excessive late collisions and a severe degredation in network perofmance just from the shear amount of time it takes for the signal to get through the entire networks.
The 5-4-3 rule is somewhat misleading as you can have trunk heirarchies and odd topologies that will allow you to used 40 repeaters (though this highly NOT recommended). Basically, you need to follow the logical path through the network from each node to verify that no single node (computer) has to pass signal through more than 4 repeaters to get to any other node.
Switches and bridges segment the 5-4-3 rule. If you have a switch in the middle of your network, the 5-4-3 rule doesn't span the switch, each side of the switch is considered it's own network. (repeat after me, switches are our friends ).
It is theoretically possible to have an entire network of switches, though I've never heard of somebody trying to span a full mile with them so I don't know what the end result would be.
All computers will be running xp pro/home and i know everyone who'll ill be serving so I'll have a admin "remote desktop account" on all of the computers if they have any problems with the setup...unless its physical
The Cisco LRE wouldn't be a bad solution if you can afford the price for each switch (List price for 24 port = $4,995, 12 port = $2,895). Of course you'll have to get a pair... (JasonKosi: I didn't know Cisco had the LRE stuff, thanks for the heads up!)
Fiber can also be prohibitively expensive. Getting 10Mbps tranceivers wouldn't be too costly, but getting that amount of fiber and terminated, not to mentioned installed could cost quite a bit.
If you have line of sight between the two sites to be connected, wireless may be the least expensive way to go. The less expensive wireless may be fairly slow (maybe 2Mbps), but it is much lest costly than the above solutions. If you do go wireless, just make sure the antennae you choose are appropriate for the distance involved. The Cisco Aironet stuff would work well, but you can get less expensive stuff from other manufacturers.
The problem with LRE is that each home will have to have what's called a CPE (customer premise equipment). These cost $150-$500 each so that's just another added cost per house. Not to mention the fact that much of this cable that's being strung about will need to be buried/bored/conduited (which is expensive) or it will be laying out exposed (which will be more expensive).
I've worked with Cisco's LRE equipment and it's pretty nice. They took a standard 2900XL series switch and added a few ASICs and the LRE chips. You can even monitor the CPE equipment from them (and theoretically from a server by way of SNMP).
LRE was really designed for buildings where there was already a phone cable plant installed. It cuts down immensely on the costs of retrofitting the cabling with Cat5.
The more we work on this, the more I doubt that this can be done given the financial limitations.
You could do wireless, did you guys ever see the segment on TechTV withe the guy who shares his connection with all of Aspen, CO? He shares his connection with the whole valley and all he charges is that he requires that you buy the network card from him.
4 wire copper connection works on those distances. we used to abuse the telephone company lines to setup very cheap 2 mbit connections until they put filters in to force us to buy adsl.
If you can put the copper into the ground that would be a solution.
!!!!! remember if you are not going fiber, that lightning realy strikes, and it likes any kind of metal conductor !!!!!