Connecting More Then 1 pc to a router

Hi all , i'm running a router with just 1 eithernet & 1 usb port
(Creative Broadband Blaster DSL Router). i cant use both ports at once i.e
The usb Port and the eithernet port. What i'm trying to do is get the net
access to another 3 pc's and a PS2 also setting up a home network , the
router has a firewall built into it aswell as nat, would it be better
going for a 4 port switch with uplink port or a 4 port hub with uplink to
share the net connection aswell as the home network? if someone could give
me some advice how to set it up or what hardware i would need , i would be
gratfull

Switches are better than hubs, there's not much difference in price really.
Both will work but a switch will work better for file transfers around the
network though for Internet connection speeds it won't make much of a
difference.


--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:33:13 +0100, Toonz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi all , i'm running a router with just 1 eithernet & 1 usb port
>(Creative Broadband Blaster DSL Router).

This is a one-port router.

> i cant use both ports at once i.e
>The usb Port and the eithernet port.

Thats how this unit works - it says so in the spec: "gives you a
choice to choose between using an Ethernet or USB interface".

You would need to get a 4-port router to replace the 1-port one, or a
switch to plug into the one port.

>router has a firewall built into it aswell as nat, would it be better
>going for a 4 port switch with uplink port or a 4 port hub with uplink

Get a switch. Performance is better and the cost is much the same.
Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.

Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.

There is really little point except from saving space. One could even
argue that separate devices are better due to not having a single point
of failure.
--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

"cw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns965C538F7376Acwfidei@212.159.2.87...
> Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.
>
> There is really little point except from saving space. One could even
> argue that separate devices are better due to not having a single point
> of failure.

With 2 devices you have double the chance of something failing.

In response to what Depresion <blank@128.0.0.1> posted in news:vlgje.13579
$(E-Mail Removed):

> "cw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns965C538F7376Acwfidei@212.159.2.87...
>> Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.
>>
>> There is really little point except from saving space. One could even
>> argue that separate devices are better due to not having a single point
>> of failure.
>
> With 2 devices you have double the chance of something failing.

Would you rather cross the Atlantic in a four-engined or single-engined
plane?

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

cw <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.
>
> There is really little point except from saving space. One could even
> argue that separate devices are better due to not having a single point
> of failure.

Eh?

It's worse because you have *two* places where a failure will bring
the system down (well, your connectivity anyway). If either the
switch or the router fails your internet connection is stuffed. Thus
you have two 'single points of failure' and are worse off from the
reliability point of view.

--
Chris Green - at home

Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In response to what Depresion <blank@128.0.0.1> posted in news:vlgje.13579
> $(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > "cw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:Xns965C538F7376Acwfidei@212.159.2.87...
> >> Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed):
> >>
> >>> Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.
> >>
> >> There is really little point except from saving space. One could even
> >> argue that separate devices are better due to not having a single point
> >> of failure.
> >
> > With 2 devices you have double the chance of something failing.
>
> Would you rather cross the Atlantic in a four-engined or single-engined
> plane?
>
If all four engines were required to keep the plane aloft then I'd
prefer the single engined plane. This is the true analogy as both the
router and the switch are required to work to have an internet
connection. The system is no use if *either* of them fails.

--
Chris Green - at home

On 20 May 2005 08:53:33 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>The system is no use if *either* of them fails.

however the LAN would still work if the separate modem/router died and
the switch/hub was separate.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices.
AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

In article <Xns965C56F3E26C8831041831041@130.133.1.4>,
Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> In response to what Depresion <blank@128.0.0.1> posted in news:vlgje.13579
> $(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> "cw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns965C538F7376Acwfidei@212.159.2.87...
>>> Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> Better yet, upgrade to a multiport router.
>>>
>>> There is really little point except from saving space. One could even
>>> argue that separate devices are better due to not having a single point
>>> of failure.
>>
>> With 2 devices you have double the chance of something failing.
>
> Would you rather cross the Atlantic in a four-engined or single-engined
> plane?
>

Well that would depend. Assume all engines have equal reliability. Were
the loss of one engine fatal for the four-engined plane, then your
chances are four times better in the single-engined. However, if the
loss of one engine is survivable for the four-engined (as is likely to
be the case), then your chances are better in the four-engined.

Whether more is better depends whether the configuration is single point
of failure, or multiple redundancy. The router/switch configuration
described is a single point of failure one - so a single device is
better.

Although reliability of devices is pretty high, the more complex a
situation is and the more devices which have to be configured the more
scope there is for human error - and the more work there is trying to
find where the problem lies. Money permitting, that's the main thing
which would make me go for the single device.

--
Tim Clark