Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT]10Base2 0r 10BaseT'
Sorry for this OT, but this expert group always delivers the goods...
I'm planning to LAN (peer to peer) 5 computers (all pre-loaded with
windoze 98)and then share net connection via ICS. Which do you think in
your experience is better 10base2 or 10baseT...What are the advantages
of each versus the other?
Alan B Pearce
>10base2 - requires coax to form network, one machine or connector faulty can
take out whole network. Stiffness of coax and minimum length requirement between
machines can make for a cabling headache. Also coax has a minimum bend radius to
maintain its impedance integrity (read minimise network errors). Limited to
>10baseT - uses Category 5 twisted pair cable, requires some care fitting
connectors, but can readily be run around a home to have machines in different
rooms do to cable being more flexible. No terminations required. a cable fault
takes out only one machine. capable of 100MBpS, with higher rates being
postulated (not likely to be a requirement for a home network). - Against -
requires some form of hub, could be a multi port network card though the machine
containing this would always need to be powered on for network to run.
These are just some points to think of, and not necessarily an exhaustive
treatise on the subject. For what it is worth, I would not go with base2 because
of the problem with one connector being able to take out the whole network
(voice of experience from dealing with company training rooms).
M. Adam Davis
|10baseT is so common that the cost, including hubs, is about equal to 10base2.
Given that, there is almost no reason to use 10base2.
10baseT works over longer distances
Wiring (assuming you use cat5) can be used without change for 100BaseTX
Wire is easier to run (4 pair twisted, non shielded)
Network topology is more configurable
Equipment for connecting to other networks (cable, adsl, etc.) is more common
Ability to use both 10baseT and 100BaseTX on the same network (with proper hubs)
Increased reliability - each machine is independent of others. A cable break
only affects the two units directly connected by the cable.
You can connect and disconnect computers from the network with impunity, will
not affect other networked computers or traffic on network.
Extra pairs of wiring can be used for phone or other uses.
Easier to troubleshoot, and narrow problems down to the cable, interface or hub
(With 10Base2 the entire network goes down, or is intermittent if a small break
in the cable occurs /somewhere/ on the cable, or any of the computers has a bad
The equipment required to extend 10base2 to longer lengths, or connect it to
other networks, while still available, is basically considered obsolete, and is
therefore sold to companies with legacy networks at a premium
At least, those are the reasons I have it deployed both at home and work...
Alan Aldaba wrote:
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> 10baseT is so common that the cost, including hubs, is about equal to 10base2.
> Given that, there is almost no reason to use 10base2.
If you rent, landlords HATE to see a bundle of 15 RJ45 cables running
down the side of the hallway - they merely sputter frequently, at a
single Co-Ax cable <G> (I use both, o'course. Co-Ax backbone, usually
clusters in a couple places of 10BaseT machines. And am adding a few
wireless machines as I get to it, IBM PCMCIA cards.)
I buy Combo cards lately, for max. flexibility. Will go to 100BaseTX
later for some machines if I get peeved at performance, haven't had it
be a problem yet.
> 10baseT works over longer distances
Certainly - And you have to run a single cable from each machine, to a
hub, for that. Can add up cost-wise, and I've heard quite a lot of
cable maintainers griping about bad RJ45 connectors and having to
re-route cables; No LAN technology's perfect. Wireless doesn't require
wires at all, it's certainly not perfect either, but I wouldn't want to
use anything else for some applications!
> Wiring (assuming you use cat5) can be used without change for 100BaseTX
Definitely a consideration.
> Wire is easier to run (4 pair twisted, non shielded)
IMO multiple wires, one from each NIC to a hub, isn't easier than one
> Network topology is more configurable
True, though in most homes/small offices, you don't "re-cubefarm" often
<G> And OTOH, with 10Base2, when you need 3 more Net taps next to an
existing one - you wire up the new 3 taps, quickly break the backbone
and snap the new segments in, you're DONE - no climbing over the roof to
run cable to the hub, no attic wandering, no new holes in the ceiling,
etc. Do this often enough, no crashes.
> Equipment for connecting to other networks (cable, adsl, etc.) is more common
> and cheaper.
Add a hub that has a 10Base2 connect onboard, if needed, to solve that.
> Ability to use both 10baseT and 100BaseTX on the same network (with proper hubs)
Many of those hubs have a 10Base2 connect as well.
> Increased reliability - each machine is independent of others. A cable break
> only affects the two units directly connected by the cable.
Ah, you mean the one machine hooked to the hub via that cable, right?
(Picky but that's the way cables run! <G>) OTOH if a server dies off,
either network cannot get at that server. (If you take that server
offline to use it's printer for Dos, you cannot print - did that to
myself the other day while making some PC boards, had to run and reboot
Want to know what has caused more problems for my LAN than anything
else, hardware wise? Bad fans, both CPU and power supply. Those, about
10 failures in the last 3-4 years.
> You can connect and disconnect computers from the network with impunity, will
> not affect other networked computers or traffic on network.
If you don't open the backbone, same with pure 10Base2 - I snap palmtops
& laptops on all over the LAN here, regularly; I've even swapped new
segments in and out with that same impunity, frankly, although I do so
QUICKLY, 1/2 second or so from open to close of the backbone <G>
> Extra pairs of wiring can be used for phone or other uses.
Truly; I just run a spare Cat. 5 cable next to my phone trunk, 5 spare
pairs there <G>
> Easier to troubleshoot, and narrow problems down to the cable, interface or hub
> (With 10Base2 the entire network goes down, or is intermittent if a small break
> in the cable occurs /somewhere/ on the cable, or any of the computers has a bad
If that happens, I split it in the middle, add terminators, reboot if
needed, to divide and conquer and localize the problem - Pretty darn
rare in my LAN (Only "Cat attack" has caused this, once, in years of
use. And it happened right in front of me - and another time, cable
didn't tear apart but the 'puter darn near came off the cart! Caught
(Other than tranquilizing your cats), one fix of course, is to spiral
wrap the "T"s with electrical tape (right hand thread-wise) to keep the
BNC connectors tight - some cheap "T"s tend to come apart (the lock ring
isn't sprung enough to latch!) if on movable carts etc., this fixes
that; Haven't used that much, I keep it in mind though. It'd slow down
some people from disconnecting coax for curiousity of what'd happen,
which I've seen happen - OTOH those same people would yank RJ45
connectors, and cycle power on LAN servers and hubs, for giggles.
Education helps here.
> The equipment required to extend 10base2 to longer lengths, or connect it to
> other networks, while still available, is basically considered obsolete, and is
> therefore sold to companies with legacy networks at a premium
Easy to just drop in one $20, 4-port plus 10Base2 hub and use RJ45 for
one distant cluster, as needed, and use 10BaseT hardware. The two are
easily synergised, and work together quite well.
Why act as if they're so opposed and incompatible? That's like saying
that "CMOS eats less power!" and "TTL is faster!" - Both're handy, and
you need to know of both to solve some problems properly.
> At least, those are the reasons I have it deployed both at home and work...
Right now all 10Base2 here, until I find the pair of 8-port hubs that're
in a box somewhere <G> Working fine, no complaints. Think ahead, solve
the causes of your possible problems in advance, and you will have a
good working solution for your situation - reliablity's THE thing here.
Both are good tech's, or neither would still be around. IMO, anything
beats floppies - which is why I got a LAN in the first place (well, that
and Networked DOOM <G>)
> I'm planning to LAN (peer to peer) 5 computers (all
> pre-loaded with
> windoze 98)and then share net connection via ICS. Which do you think in
> your experience is better 10base2 or 10baseT...What are the advantages
> of each versus the other?
Pretty simple, 10base2 is cheaper to wire since you don't need a hub. In
some circumstances it makes more sense using this type if your computers
form a long line, the disadvantage is if there is one bad connection or NIC,
the WHOLE network goes down.
10BaseT is much better for non linear type computer configs. It is more
expensive to start since a network with more than two computers always needs
a hub. However, if there is a bad connection or NIC it will only affect the
one computer involved. Hope this helped, TTYL
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000
, 2001 only
- New search...