Capacity of single cat5e cable

I have 3 PC's upstairs, with my current 2mb cable modem also upstairs. The
PC's connect to the web via a 4 port switch.

I also have a file/print/email server (on 24/7) downstairs connect to the
same switch via a cat5e cable (solid core and fixed to walls, etc). Cable
length is about 20m max.

I'm switching to ADSL (4mb) and my phone socket is downstairs next to the
server, so I intend putting a ADSL router/switch downstairs. Will the cat5e
cable be able to cope with 3 PC's browsing and file transfer, etc. The
server is mainly used to store software and as a backup for the PC's (i.e.
on PC shutdown all 'my doc' is copied to server downstairs).

Or, should I move my switch downstairs and run another 3 cat5 cables
upstairs?

Thanks

Clive

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:29:16 GMT, "Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>server, so I intend putting a ADSL router/switch downstairs. Will the cat5e
>cable be able to cope with 3 PC's browsing and file transfer, etc. The

Yes, provided the switches are both 100 megabit at each end, and that
they actually recognise each other as 100 megabit.

I've frequently found kit, marked as 100 megabit, autosensing
incorrectly then downgrading a socket to 10 megabit for no adequately
explained reason. Since I buy cheap kit, I'm guessing that better kit
doesn't do this.

--
Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:29:16 GMT, "Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Will the cat5e
>cable be able to cope with 3 PC's browsing and file transfer, etc.

there's potentially only one Cat5 going into the modem, if that gives
you a clue

Even 10M ethernet will eat an ADSL connection and you probably have
100M on the Cat5. Not an issue, IMO.

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

"Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0JEne.43962$(E-Mail Removed). uk...
>I have 3 PC's upstairs, with my current 2mb cable modem also upstairs. The
>PC's connect to the web via a 4 port switch.
>
> I also have a file/print/email server (on 24/7) downstairs connect to the
> same switch via a cat5e cable (solid core and fixed to walls, etc). Cable
> length is about 20m max.
>
> I'm switching to ADSL (4mb) and my phone socket is downstairs next to the
> server, so I intend putting a ADSL router/switch downstairs. Will the
> cat5e cable be able to cope with 3 PC's browsing and file transfer, etc.
> The server is mainly used to store software and as a backup for the PC's
> (i.e. on PC shutdown all 'my doc' is copied to server downstairs).
>
> Or, should I move my switch downstairs and run another 3 cat5 cables
> upstairs?

I've only once come close to saturating a 100 Mbps LAN, and that was when I
was copying three separate directories from the same PC to three other PCs.
The network usage on the source PC then peaked at around 90%. Normally, even
between two modern-spec PCs with Win XP, a single directory copy only seems
to use about 30-40% flat-out.

The speed of the LAN is only an issue for PC-to-PC traffic. Any LAN (even 10
Mbps Ethernet or 11 Mbps Wireless-B) will be faster than a broadband
internet connection (almost certainly 2 Mbps max) so the broadband, rather
than the LAN, will be the rate-limiting step for internet traffic.

In message <429f43d6$0$32411$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Martin Underwood <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>"Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:0JEne.43962$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...
>>I have 3 PC's upstairs, with my current 2mb cable modem also upstairs. The
>>PC's connect to the web via a 4 port switch.
>>
>> I also have a file/print/email server (on 24/7) downstairs connect to the
>> same switch via a cat5e cable (solid core and fixed to walls, etc). Cable
>> length is about 20m max.
>>
>> I'm switching to ADSL (4mb) and my phone socket is downstairs next to the
>> server, so I intend putting a ADSL router/switch downstairs. Will the
>> cat5e cable be able to cope with 3 PC's browsing and file transfer, etc.
>> The server is mainly used to store software and as a backup for the PC's
>> (i.e. on PC shutdown all 'my doc' is copied to server downstairs).
>>
>> Or, should I move my switch downstairs and run another 3 cat5 cables
>> upstairs?
>
>I've only once come close to saturating a 100 Mbps LAN, and that was when I
>was copying three separate directories from the same PC to three other PCs.
>The network usage on the source PC then peaked at around 90%. Normally, even
>between two modern-spec PCs with Win XP, a single directory copy only seems
>to use about 30-40% flat-out.
>
>The speed of the LAN is only an issue for PC-to-PC traffic. Any LAN (even 10
>Mbps Ethernet or 11 Mbps Wireless-B) will be faster than a broadband
>internet connection (almost certainly 2 Mbps max) so the broadband, rather
>than the LAN, will be the rate-limiting step for internet traffic.
>
>
What he said, should cope perfectly well, but why not use one of the
spare pairs in the cat5 as a telephone extension and place the router
upstairs if you're concerned? Saves running extra cables etc and your
network bandwidth between the workstations and Server isn't touched.
--
Clint Sharp

On 2 Jun 2005 18:37, "Martin Underwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Any LAN (even 10 Mbps Ethernet or 11 Mbps Wireless-B) will be faster than
>a broadband internet connection (almost certainly 2 Mbps max) so the
>broadband, rather than the LAN, will be the rate-limiting step for
>internet traffic.

Given the 8000 kbps services from UK Online and Bulldog, being available to
some 4+ million people (probably the same 4 million for both services, in a
number of metro areas), I'd expect there to be some instances where a Wi-Fi
link which isn't performing at the full 11 Mpbs may slow things down when a
LAN is being used by several PCs (eg requesting traffic from several remote
servers, so total incoming traffic gets near the max ADSL speed possible).

--
UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/dghgq> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!
E-mail + files - 30 day free trial - <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>
USENET news service ? <http://tinyurl.com/3rjw4> (plans from under US$5)

Clint Sharp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> What he said, should cope perfectly well, but why not use one of the
> spare pairs in the cat5 as a telephone extension and place the router
> upstairs if you're concerned? Saves running extra cables etc and your
> network bandwidth between the workstations and Server isn't touched.

Make sure you aren't running gigabit ethernet if your thinking of using the
spare pairs...because there are no spare pairs with gigabit.

"Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:0JEne.43962$(E-Mail Removed). uk:

To answer the subject..."capacity of single CAT-5 cable". CAT-5 bandwidth
is currently pushing 10-Gigabit full duplex mainly thanks to some nifty bit
encoding. That's what about 1.25 Gigabytes per second in both directions.
Given that a high spec RAID arrays can probably push around 350 Megabytes
per second, that makes CAT-5 useful for some years to come.