How many sockets when using 4 port router modem?

Hi,
Apologies if this seems to be a stupid question.

After changing the use of some rooms I'm planning on re-cabling the
house for data and telephone.

One of the things I can't yet get clear is whether any room that might
later become the site of my wandering 4 port router/modem, will need 3
data sockets 'out' to connect to remote computers around the house?

Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?
--
Kind regards,
Geoff Mills

Geoff Mills wrote:
<snip>
> Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
> panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
> feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?

Yes, but that one cable out would need to have a switch at the other
end, not just a patch panel.

I have a 4 port dsl router connected to a 24 port switch here in the
office. They sit next to each other in this instance, but there's no
reason why they need to.

J

On 08 Nov 2006, Geoff Mills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
>panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
>feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?

If you're thinking 'radially' (or perhaps more often considered a 'star')
then you would need cables from each room to somewhere 'central' (loft?)
and a multi-port hub (or switch). 8 or 12 ports would allow for 2 cables
to a number of rooms, so you could have 2 PCs in some other location from
where your broadband connection is made. (ie the broadband connection
is going on one cable from the room the unit is in to the 'central'
hub/switch, and everything else gets fed from there).


A 'patch panel' would suit if a lot more cables were coming from each room,
but only a limited number of them needed to be 'live' - you'd put in patch
cables to some multi-port switch for the N live cables... It seems to be
overkill unless you have a large house and lots of connections.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:02:55 +0000, Jeff <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Geoff Mills wrote:
><snip>
>> Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
>> panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
>> feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?
>
>Yes, but that one cable out would need to have a switch at the other
>end, not just a patch panel.

Thanks, I see what you mean. If adding a switch is more economical
than wiring 3 extra sockets from each room, would it be that a switch
at the end of one cable would carry data to and from the other 3
computers as fast and efficiently as cabling to all 4 ports on the
router?


>I have a 4 port dsl router connected to a 24 port switch here in the
>office. They sit next to each other in this instance, but there's no
>reason why they need to.

Yes, it seems quite a versatile arrangement. I'll do some research on
it.


>J

--
Kind regards,
Geoff Mills

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:12:28 +0000, NoNeedToKnow
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 08 Nov 2006, Geoff Mills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
>>panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
>>feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?
>
>If you're thinking 'radially' (or perhaps more often considered a 'star')
>then you would need cables from each room to somewhere 'central' (loft?)
>and a multi-port hub (or switch). 8 or 12 ports would allow for 2 cables
>to a number of rooms, so you could have 2 PCs in some other location from
>where your broadband connection is made. (ie the broadband connection
>is going on one cable from the room the unit is in to the 'central'
>hub/switch, and everything else gets fed from there).

Yes it's an interesting option. I need to find out about the effects
on data speeds.


>A 'patch panel' would suit if a lot more cables were coming from each room,
>but only a limited number of them needed to be 'live' - you'd put in patch
>cables to some multi-port switch for the N live cables... It seems to be
>overkill unless you have a large house and lots of connections.

It's not a large house but rooms do seem to keep changing use as
family members come and go.
--
Kind regards,
Geoff Mills

Geoff Mills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:12:28 +0000, NoNeedToKnow
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >On 08 Nov 2006, Geoff Mills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
> >>panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
> >>feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?
> >
> >If you're thinking 'radially' (or perhaps more often considered a 'star')
> >then you would need cables from each room to somewhere 'central' (loft?)
> >and a multi-port hub (or switch). 8 or 12 ports would allow for 2 cables
> >to a number of rooms, so you could have 2 PCs in some other location from
> >where your broadband connection is made. (ie the broadband connection
> >is going on one cable from the room the unit is in to the 'central'
> >hub/switch, and everything else gets fed from there).
>
> Yes it's an interesting option. I need to find out about the effects
> on data speeds.
>
Unless you're really pushing at the limits of your cable's/ethernet's
capabilities the number of routers/switches between computers won't
radically affect the speed at which they communicate.

--
Chris Green

Geoff Mills wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:02:55 +0000, Jeff <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Geoff Mills wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
>>> panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other
>>> computers feasible, or do router ports have to be connected
>>> individually?
>>
>> Yes, but that one cable out would need to have a switch at the other
>> end, not just a patch panel.
>
> Thanks, I see what you mean. If adding a switch is more economical
> than wiring 3 extra sockets from each room, would it be that a switch
> at the end of one cable would carry data to and from the other 3
> computers as fast and efficiently as cabling to all 4 ports on the
> router?

Assuming it's a 100m/bit switch as just about all of them are , yes.
Your net connection is only going to be 10m/bit at most.
>
>> I have a 4 port dsl router connected to a 24 port switch here in the
>> office. They sit next to each other in this instance, but there's no
>> reason why they need to.
>
> Yes, it seems quite a versatile arrangement. I'll do some research on
> it.

Bear in mind that if you do use a switch in this way thats another power
supply that will need to be left running , so cost savings could be eaten up
by the increased electricity bill.

The cost of installing network cabling is more due to the labour charges (or
your own time) than the physical components so if you are making the effort
to get it installed then I'd suggest running at least two cables to each
room rather than the one.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On 08 Nov 2006 12:59:11 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Geoff Mills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:12:28 +0000, NoNeedToKnow
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >On 08 Nov 2006, Geoff Mills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is the alternative of one port, socket and cable 'out' to a patch
>> >>panel, where the data can then be sent radially to the other computers
>> >>feasible, or do router ports have to be connected individually?
>> >
>> >If you're thinking 'radially' (or perhaps more often considered a 'star')
>> >then you would need cables from each room to somewhere 'central' (loft?)
>> >and a multi-port hub (or switch). 8 or 12 ports would allow for 2 cables
>> >to a number of rooms, so you could have 2 PCs in some other location from
>> >where your broadband connection is made. (ie the broadband connection
>> >is going on one cable from the room the unit is in to the 'central'
>> >hub/switch, and everything else gets fed from there).
>>
>> Yes it's an interesting option. I need to find out about the effects
>> on data speeds.
>>
>Unless you're really pushing at the limits of your cable's/ethernet's
>capabilities the number of routers/switches between computers won't
>radically affect the speed at which they communicate.

Thanks all, you've given me lots of ideas to work on.
--
Kind regards,
Geoff Mills

On 8 Nov 2006, "Dr Zoidberg" wrote:

>I'd suggest running at least two cables to each room ...

Indeed. In an office environment, there could be some savings (eg where
some phones will have ethernet "in" and "out" so the voice is sent as
data and then a PC can be plugged via the phone to a wall socket (on
to some central point).

In a home situation it might be worth looking for data-over-mains units
(eg in a web site 'clearance' section, or on Ebay) as it would need one
per PC and one for the router... All data would go to all power points
in the property without needing to wire up every room. Downsides are

a) most of these suggest being plugged into the mains socket only
(ie not via some power distribution board - and given the shape of
them, then some power points are unsuitable because of the clearance
needed for them to be plugged in)

b) cost, at present, if buying new (but with 14, 85 and 200 Mbps units
I suspect the prices for the lower speed units will come down a bit)

c) transfer speeds, if one has higher than 10 Mbps broadband or for any
local transfers between PCs (or if using some network storage - eg a
Freecom 250 GB unit on the LAN) and the difference between a 100 Mbps
cable link against a mains power unit at a fraction, unless paying the
top end prices.