If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 21:17:15 -0000, nospam wrote:
In article , Steven Watkins wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. Obviously they don't hand out 100 boxes to people with a 150 line!! That would be like selling a car with a 6 litre engine and bicycle tyres. or don't want a second box adding to clutter and a nest of cables. Most people don't have several computers, pointless to have a more expensive router just for the few that transfer large files between machines. If you do have several computers, one extra box is nothing, especially when you screw it under the desk like I do. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
In article , Steven Watkins
wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. Obviously they don't hand out 100 boxes to people with a 150 line!! That would be like selling a car with a 6 litre engine and bicycle tyres. or don't want a second box adding to clutter and a nest of cables. Most people don't have several computers, oh yes they do. most people have *numerous* devices on their network, including multiple computers, smartphones, tablets, a printer, set top boxes, security cameras, iot devices and more. most are on wifi, but some will be wired. pointless to have a more expensive router just for the few that transfer large files between machines. gigabit routers are cheap, and actually a bottleneck. a usb 3 spinning hard drive is *faster* than gigabit, an internal ssd or raid even more so. If you do have several computers, one extra box is nothing, especially when you screw it under the desk like I do. it adds up quickly. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:14:34 -0000, nospam wrote:
In article , Steven Watkins wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. And waiting for newer technology and probably new cables or fibre to be laid for hundreds of miles under the roads. Obviously they don't hand out 100 boxes to people with a 150 line!! That would be like selling a car with a 6 litre engine and bicycle tyres. or don't want a second box adding to clutter and a nest of cables. Most people don't have several computers, oh yes they do. most people have *numerous* devices on their network, including multiple computers, smartphones, tablets, a printer, set top boxes, security cameras, iot devices and more. most are on wifi, but some will be wired. Yes, but most of those don't transfer anything requiring gigabit. My neighbour has two tablets, two laptops, and a desktop. The only network activity between them is to share a printer. Otherwise they all get used for Facebook, email, and Ebay. pointless to have a more expensive router just for the few that transfer large files between machines. gigabit routers are cheap, and actually a bottleneck. a usb 3 spinning hard drive is *faster* than gigabit, an internal ssd or raid even more so. Not in my experience, my USB 3 hard disks were **** until I removed them from their caddies and put them inside the computers onto SATA. If you do have several computers, one extra box is nothing, especially when you screw it under the desk like I do. it adds up quickly. One box is nothing compared to 5 computers and monitors. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
In article , Steven Watkins
wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. And waiting for newer technology and probably new cables or fibre to be laid for hundreds of miles under the roads. that's already there, and has been for years. Most people don't have several computers, oh yes they do. most people have *numerous* devices on their network, including multiple computers, smartphones, tablets, a printer, set top boxes, security cameras, iot devices and more. most are on wifi, but some will be wired. Yes, but most of those don't transfer anything requiring gigabit. oh yes they do. hdtv & 4ktv over 100bt is going to have problems and copying anything other than tiny files will take a lot of time, no matter what device it is. My neighbour has two tablets, two laptops, and a desktop. The only network activity between them is to share a printer. Otherwise they all get used for Facebook, email, and Ebay. what your neighbor does is not representative of the rest of the world. pointless to have a more expensive router just for the few that transfer large files between machines. gigabit routers are cheap, and actually a bottleneck. a usb 3 spinning hard drive is *faster* than gigabit, an internal ssd or raid even more so. Not in my experience, my USB 3 hard disks were **** until I removed them from their caddies and put them inside the computers onto SATA. then your system is defective or you did something wrong. typical speeds for a usb 3 spinner (i.e., slow) are around 120-130 mbyte/sec (already faster than gigabit) with the better ssds & raid around 300 mbyte/sec, or *3* gigabit/sec, sometimes even more. gigabit is a bottleneck, and that's only going to get worse going forward. If you do have several computers, one extra box is nothing, especially when you screw it under the desk like I do. it adds up quickly. One box is nothing compared to 5 computers and monitors. it adds up, and the various devices aren't all going to be next to the modem anyway. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 23:44:41 -0000, nospam wrote:
In article , Steven Watkins wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. And waiting for newer technology and probably new cables or fibre to be laid for hundreds of miles under the roads. that's already there, and has been for years. ********. BT had to lay fibre under the roads to get me FTTC. It's still not available everywhere. Most people don't have several computers, oh yes they do. most people have *numerous* devices on their network, including multiple computers, smartphones, tablets, a printer, set top boxes, security cameras, iot devices and more. most are on wifi, but some will be wired. Yes, but most of those don't transfer anything requiring gigabit. oh yes they do. hdtv & 4ktv over 100bt is going to have problems If the internet connection is over 100Mbit, there'll be a faster router. The ISP ain't gonna give away an expensive router before it's needed. and copying anything other than tiny files will take a lot of time, no matter what device it is. Most people only copy tiny files. Or not at all. 90% of people wouldn't even know how to set up file sharing. My neighbour has two tablets, two laptops, and a desktop. The only network activity between them is to share a printer. Otherwise they all get used for Facebook, email, and Ebay. what your neighbor does is not representative of the rest of the world. She's pretty typical of the uneducated masses. pointless to have a more expensive router just for the few that transfer large files between machines. gigabit routers are cheap, and actually a bottleneck. a usb 3 spinning hard drive is *faster* than gigabit, an internal ssd or raid even more so. Not in my experience, my USB 3 hard disks were **** until I removed them from their caddies and put them inside the computers onto SATA. then your system is defective or you did something wrong. No, the USB interfaces tend to be cheap ****. typical speeds for a usb 3 spinner (i.e., slow) are around 120-130 mbyte/sec (already faster than gigabit) with the better ssds & raid around 300 mbyte/sec, or *3* gigabit/sec, sometimes even more. gigabit is a bottleneck, and that's only going to get worse going forward. You really don't have a ****ing clue. If you do have several computers, one extra box is nothing, especially when you screw it under the desk like I do. it adds up quickly. One box is nothing compared to 5 computers and monitors. it adds up, It's a 100th of the size of a computer. It's the same size as a ****ing doorbell chime. and the various devices aren't all going to be next to the modem anyway. The way you want it, it would be IN the modem, so it has to be "next to it". At least remember your own ideas. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
Steven Watkins wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:14:34 -0000, nospam wrote: In article , Steven Watkins wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. And waiting for newer technology and probably new cables or fibre to be laid for hundreds of miles under the roads. The fiber itself is reusable through multiple generations of terminal equipment. Once the single mode fiber is in the ground, it can be reused again and again as the terminal equipment gets better. You can run the same fiber at 1Gbit/sec, 10Gbit/sec, 40Gbit/sec, or 100Gbit/sec. You can multiplex 40 "colors" of light in the infrared, all on the same single-mode fiber. (The equipment on your pedestal right now, is likely using two colors.) Useful technologies are available now, today, to do this stuff. Doing so, makes the terminal equipment, more and more expensive. In the past, only undersea cables did some of the above. Paul |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 02:02:09 -0000, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 01:08:57 -0000, "Steven Watkins" wrote: On Wed, 07 Nov 2018 00:11:44 -0000, Paul wrote: Steven Watkins wrote: On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 11:03:55 -0000, wasbit wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news Steven Watkins wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:05:51 -0000, mechanic wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:12:43 -0000, Steven Watkins wrote: The outer box I have connects to the phone line (fibre) on one side, and produces something on an ethernet cable on the other side. Why can't that plug directly into the computer? Having two boxes (in the UK) goes back to the earlier days of fibre. The most popular scheme at the moment (again in the UK) is a fibre connection to a local cabinet, where the various customer channels are separated and connected via individual copper pairs to the customer. At first these systems were entirely the responsibility of BT Openreach and typically an engineer visit was needed to set the thing up. The modem supplies a TCP/IP data stream to a router which, er, routes the data packets to individual machines on the same premises. Nowadays with the march of progress the two boxes are combined into one and supplied part configured by the ISP. Installing is thus much simpler and is usually left to the end user. So it was either two companies not wanting problems that weren't their fault, or a badly designed primary router (the one nearest the outside world) that couldn't provide more than one output, or wireless, or they couldn't be bothered having the circuitry to log into the ISP. Is the ISP box, something similar to the ones here ? https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...nd-isps.html/2 I have this, which claims to be ADSL, but that port isn't connected, instead it gets the incoming via ethernet from the below openreach modem. https://community.plus.net/t5/Librar...s/ba-p/1322590 It can be, but the Openreach modem is like this - http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/d...ch-fibre-modem I have that too. All the ones that I've seen have two ethernet ports with one blanked off. As does mine. The phone line is connected via an RJ11 port - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_jack I'm getting dizzy. What's with all the 10/100BT ports ? :-\ 802.11n 2x2 (2.4 GHz) (b/g/n). What is this, 1970 ? Something in this picture... just... isn't... needed. Or should be re-sold/re-gifted on Ebay or something. I've seen other ISPs do this stuff too. Offer a super-high-speed service, then rent customers equipment with 4 ports of the 10/100BT persuasion. I suppose it's no worse than the first broadband service I got here. Where the provider said to use a separate software package to terminate PPPOE, with the usual couple of crashes per evening (the OS at the time, didn't support PPPOE termination itself). I had to fork out on a home router, to stop the crashing. Even that router wasn't all that good. Today, you could buy the same router for $39.95, and the Ethernet cables cost more than the router does. And the $39.95 router is actually stable. Why can't you take the OpenReach modem, and plug a GbE switch into its one RJ45 ? At least the machine to machine network in the house would perform well. The port is labeled LAN1, so there's probably also a one-port-router in there. Not sure what you're getting at. I pay for 38 or 80 (limited to 54 by the length of copper to my house) Mbps. Both routers are capable of 100. Nothing slows anything down and they very rarely crash. Paul described the LAN as "machine to machine". Do you have two or more PCs on the LAN? If not, then skip this, but if you do, then take a look at each of their network adapters. Are they all Gigabit-capable? If so, you're hamstringing them by connecting them to a 100BT interface on your router. You could potentially greatly increase the file transfer speed between PCs by connecting them to a Gigabit switch. To complete the Internet portion, you'd connect one port on the Gig switch to one port on your current router. That would make LAN transfers much faster than they are now, without affecting your Internet speed. Already got one. But I don't expect the rather more expensive Gigabit switch to be included with the freebie stuff you get from the ISP, since most people don't need that kind of speed to play on Facebook and Youtube. Above, when you say, "Both routers are capable of 100", that's just annoying. For the Nth time, you don't have two routers. You have one modem and one router. I really don't care what they call them. It's just ****ing pointless having two. All they need is a box to convert the signal on outdoor wires into normal ethernet. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
On Fri, 09 Nov 2018 01:40:28 -0000, Paul wrote:
Steven Watkins wrote: On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:14:34 -0000, nospam wrote: In article , Steven Watkins wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. And waiting for newer technology and probably new cables or fibre to be laid for hundreds of miles under the roads. The fiber itself is reusable through multiple generations of terminal equipment. Once the single mode fiber is in the ground, it can be reused again and again as the terminal equipment gets better. You can run the same fiber at 1Gbit/sec, 10Gbit/sec, 40Gbit/sec, or 100Gbit/sec. You can multiplex 40 "colors" of light in the infrared, all on the same single-mode fiber. (The equipment on your pedestal right now, is likely using two colors.) Useful technologies are available now, today, to do this stuff. Doing so, makes the terminal equipment, more and more expensive. In the past, only undersea cables did some of the above. But the last 300 yards of copper (or in my case aluminium) is what's limiting it. Digging up the road and pavement to get fibre to every house would be ****ing expensive. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"you appear to be offline"
In article , Steven Watkins
wrote: When I need Gigabit between computers, I buy my own Gigabit switch and plug one of the ports into the internet router. Really no need to have that as standard on the router. it is when you have internet speeds of 100mbit or faster, Except these routers are given to people with speeds under 100. gigabit is cheap and people eventually will upgrade, especially when all it takes is a phone call or clicking a button online. And waiting for newer technology and probably new cables or fibre to be laid for hundreds of miles under the roads. that's already there, and has been for years. ********. BT had to lay fibre under the roads to get me FTTC. It's still not available everywhere. maybe where you are, but elsewhere that was done long ago, without any need to upgrade it. cable networks keep improving the protocol for faster speeds, now at docsis 3.1 & gigabit, using the same cables they had for docsis 2 & 1. gigabit fios uses existing fibre. they have been installing gpons for years, but for those who have an older fpon and want 100mbit service (which is now the minimum or one step up), it's a simple replacement, and since the fpon is on the outside of the house, nobody needs to be home for that to happen. and then there's wireless. gigabit lte deployments are starting to become common, and 5g will be faster still. Most people don't have several computers, oh yes they do. most people have *numerous* devices on their network, including multiple computers, smartphones, tablets, a printer, set top boxes, security cameras, iot devices and more. most are on wifi, but some will be wired. Yes, but most of those don't transfer anything requiring gigabit. oh yes they do. hdtv & 4ktv over 100bt is going to have problems If the internet connection is over 100Mbit, there'll be a faster router. The ISP ain't gonna give away an expensive router before it's needed. they will, because the difference in cost is negligible, if anything. 100bt equipment is obsolete. plus, if the customer has gigabit equipment, they will be able to upgrade without a service call. it's cheaper in the long run and a much better experience for the customer. and copying anything other than tiny files will take a lot of time, no matter what device it is. Most people only copy tiny files. Or not at all. 90% of people wouldn't even know how to set up file sharing. nonsense to both. an hd video is typically 2 gig *each*. raw photos from an slr are 30-50 meg *each*. shoot a few hundred photos at an event and that's another 5-10 gig, often more. the windows 10 installer about 5 gig. many apps are a gig or two, especially games with a lot of graphics, some much more than that. My neighbour has two tablets, two laptops, and a desktop. The only network activity between them is to share a printer. Otherwise they all get used for Facebook, email, and Ebay. what your neighbor does is not representative of the rest of the world. She's pretty typical of the uneducated masses. fortunately, a lot of the masses are educated. try hanging out with smart people for a change. pointless to have a more expensive router just for the few that transfer large files between machines. gigabit routers are cheap, and actually a bottleneck. a usb 3 spinning hard drive is *faster* than gigabit, an internal ssd or raid even more so. Not in my experience, my USB 3 hard disks were **** until I removed them from their caddies and put them inside the computers onto SATA. then your system is defective or you did something wrong. No, the USB interfaces tend to be cheap ****. nonsense, and the limiting factor is the drive, not the cost of the interface. usb 3 is capable of 5gb/s, with usb 3.1 gen 2 at 10 gb/s. and then there's thunderbolt at 40 gb/s. gigabit is slow in comparison. typical speeds for a usb 3 spinner (i.e., slow) are around 120-130 mbyte/sec (already faster than gigabit) with the better ssds & raid around 300 mbyte/sec, or *3* gigabit/sec, sometimes even more. gigabit is a bottleneck, and that's only going to get worse going forward. You really don't have a ****ing clue. ad hominem. If you do have several computers, one extra box is nothing, especially when you screw it under the desk like I do. it adds up quickly. One box is nothing compared to 5 computers and monitors. it adds up, It's a 100th of the size of a computer. It's the same size as a ****ing doorbell chime. that depends on the computer and the switch. a network switch, which actually is a computer itself, is roughly the same size or even bigger than a smartphone, set top box and/or nuc. some switches are bigger than a laptop, with a few of them bigger than a desktop. http://cdn.cnetcontent.com/df/80/df8...16eb7d69b9ec.j pg and the various devices aren't all going to be next to the modem anyway. The way you want it, it would be IN the modem, so it has to be "next to it". At least remember your own ideas. the switch would be, but the rest of the stuff, no. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|