RJ45 length

'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a single run
of CAT5 network cable. I need to run 50m at least, from one PC to another.
Wireless isn't an option due to location and the absolute reliability of
connection required. Is 50m of CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?

"Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> 'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
> single run of CAT5 network cable.

Correct

> I need to run 50m at least,
> from one PC to another. Wireless isn't an option due to location
> and the absolute reliability of connection required. Is 50m of
> CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?

Not due to the cable length.

McSpreader wrote:
> "Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
>
>
> Correct
>
>
>>I need to run 50m at least,
>>from one PC to another. Wireless isn't an option due to location
>>and the absolute reliability of connection required. Is 50m of
>>CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
>
>
> Not due to the cable length.

But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

"Mike Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:decpe.9102$(E-Mail Removed)...
> McSpreader wrote:
>> "Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
>>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
>>
>>
>> Correct
>>
>>
>>>I need to run 50m at least,
>>>from one PC to another. Wireless isn't an option due to location
>>>and the absolute reliability of connection required. Is 50m of
>>>CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
>>
>>
>> Not due to the cable length.
>
> But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.

Roughly how much will they add? Is it a fixed amount (maybe differing from
one model of hub to another) or is it a proportion of the actual cable
length?

Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:decpe.9102$(E-Mail Removed):

> McSpreader wrote:
>> "Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>
>>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
>>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
>>
>>
>> Correct
>>
>>
>>>I need to run 50m at least,
>>>from one PC to another. Wireless isn't an option due to location
>>>and the absolute reliability of connection required. Is 50m of
>>>CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
>>
>>
>> Not due to the cable length.
>
> But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.

No problem with 50m. No problem with 200m if you put a hub/repeater in
the middle, that's if my memory serves me right. I think you can have
four hub/repeaters before the latency will cause too many late
collisions.

Dean Jarratt wrote:
> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:decpe.9102$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>McSpreader wrote:
>>
>>>"Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
>>>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I need to run 50m at least,
>>>
>>>>from one PC to another. Wireless isn't an option due to location
>>>
>>>>and the absolute reliability of connection required. Is 50m of
>>>>CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not due to the cable length.
>>
>>But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.
>
>
> No problem with 50m. No problem with 200m if you put a hub/repeater in
> the middle, that's if my memory serves me right. I think you can have
> four hub/repeaters before the latency will cause too many late
> collisions.

Might be worth browsing the linksys product manuals which are online.
Although I'm not totally convinced, as they seem to suggest 100m each
side of a plain hub; I thought it was 100m end-to-end less the hub's
effective length. They do suggest only 2 hubs though. But I doubt that
will worry the OP.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

"Dean Jarratt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns966E6624D4255djarrattposts@158.152.254.254 ...
> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:decpe.9102$(E-Mail Removed):
> > McSpreader wrote:
> >> "Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed):
> >>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
> >>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
> >>
> >> Correct
[snip]
> >>>Is 50m of CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
> >>
> >> Not due to the cable length.
> >
> > But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.
>
> No problem with 50m. No problem with 200m if you put a hub/repeater in
> the middle, that's if my memory serves me right. I think you can have
> four hub/repeaters before the latency will cause too many late
> collisions.

If two transmitters are that far apart (in time) and they are both
transmitting any significant amount, won't there be many late collisions? In
other words, unless the load is light, you either have no late collisions or
lots - with fairly disastrous results.

AFAICS the 100m limit is purely to cope with signal loss and/or degradation.
Do hubs and repeaters regenerate or just amplify the signal?

Is there a limit on the number of "chained" switches, and if so, why?

Alex

"Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Dean Jarratt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns966E6624D4255djarrattposts@158.152.254.254 ...
>> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:decpe.9102$(E-Mail Removed):
>> > McSpreader wrote:
>> >> "Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>> >>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
>> >>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
>> >>
>> >> Correct
> [snip]
>> >>>Is 50m of CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
>> >>
>> >> Not due to the cable length.
>> >
>> > But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.
>>
>> No problem with 50m. No problem with 200m if you put a hub/repeater in
>> the middle, that's if my memory serves me right. I think you can have
>> four hub/repeaters before the latency will cause too many late
>> collisions.

not if you use a switch also....full duplex mode will allow data to transmit
in both directions at the same time? Between two hosts there isn't a very
great chance of colisions, in a sense switches eliminate the whole collision
thing, so just use a switch, also full duplex :-)

>
> If two transmitters are that far apart (in time) and they are both
> transmitting any significant amount, won't there be many late collisions?
> In
> other words, unless the load is light, you either have no late collisions
> or
> lots - with fairly disastrous results.
>
> AFAICS the 100m limit is purely to cope with signal loss and/or
> degradation.
> Do hubs and repeaters regenerate or just amplify the signal?
>
> Is there a limit on the number of "chained" switches, and if so, why?
>
> Alex
>
>

"Alex Fraser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> "Dean Jarratt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns966E6624D4255djarrattposts@158.152.254.254 ...
>> Mike Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:decpe.9102$(E-Mail Removed):
>> > McSpreader wrote:
>> >> "Tx2" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>> >>>'Googling' leads me to believe 100m is the maximum length for a
>> >>>single run of CAT5 network cable.
>> >>
>> >> Correct
> [snip]
>> >>>Is 50m of CAT5 likely to cause me any major issues?
>> >>
>> >> Not due to the cable length.
>> >
>> > But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective
>> > length.
>>
>> No problem with 50m. No problem with 200m if you put a hub/repeater
>> in the middle, that's if my memory serves me right. I think you can
>> have four hub/repeaters before the latency will cause too many late
>> collisions.
>
> If two transmitters are that far apart (in time) and they are both
> transmitting any significant amount, won't there be many late
> collisions? In other words, unless the load is light, you either have
> no late collisions or lots - with fairly disastrous results.
>
> AFAICS the 100m limit is purely to cope with signal loss and/or
> degradation. Do hubs and repeaters regenerate or just amplify the
> signal?
>
> Is there a limit on the number of "chained" switches, and if so, why?

The 4 repeater rule is to cope with late collisions, any more than this and
as you rightly say 'late collisions' become apparent.

It also depends greatly on the speed of the ethernet as this affects the
slot-time involved. The slot-time is the maximum distance that bits may
travel before they hit a collision and the sending station can detect the
collision. Because it would take longer to transmit on a 10-Base-T network
it means that collisions can be detected further than on a high speed
connection, hence late collisions don't happen as often.

Having too many switches for a transmission to pass through will eventually
create too much latency for the network to perform well. I guess there's no
hard and fast rule with switches and latency because each switch can
introduce different latencies, depending on how the frame is switched.

In message <42a55f26$0$41926$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Martin Underwood <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> But don't forget hubs and switches will add to the effective length.
>
>Roughly how much will they add? Is it a fixed amount (maybe differing from
>one model of hub to another) or is it a proportion of the actual cable
>length?
>
>
I'm not exactly sure who has the misunderstanding here, but you can
'extend' a network to twice the length of the 'bare' cable by adding a
hub in the centre, the reason is that the hub/switch can re-time and
clean up the signal.
There is the 3,4,5 rule, basically, three cable segments with hosts,
four repeaters and five segments total, so a total length for CAT5 of 5
times the maximum single cable run is possible (500m IIRC) without any
'special' equipment like fibre converters, you just need four powered
hubs/switches and you can run five 100m lengths of cable (Usually
regarded as 90m plus patch cable length IIRC )
--
Clint Sharp