Products > Networking & Wireless

10GBASE-T - Too much speed for home use?

<< < (20/21) > >>

ve7xen:

--- Quote from: JohanH on April 06, 2023, 07:36:55 pm ---The ITU/IEEE rivalry might be a bit exaggerated. Mostly tongue in cheek nowadays. But there are some background.

Conditions may vary and it's good that newer standard PON is deployed. I have seen bad networks around by the big ISPs.

There are lots of smaller fiber cooperatives around here that were built 15 years ago when the big operators removed their copper and offered only 3G/4G instead. All of these countryside and small town networks were built with network switches, AFAIK. I've some insight about ten such networks built around here in different towns. We tried to start our own fiber network in my village also; we were verbally threatened by the then local old telecom ISP; ultimately we didn't get enough interested users and didn't start digging. Fiber has become so cheap, so you don't save anything with PON, especially in rural, more widespread networks. Big ISPs might have easier deployment with PON in big cities with lots of departments.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, this is definitely true. There hasn't been a lot of development in small-scale PON (though there has been some), so it doesn't really start to make sense until a certain inflection point is reached that I'd guess is around 1000 homes passed. Many of these community ISPs are grassroots efforts, and often start at very small scale. It definitely doesn't make sense to run a PON shelf that can service 1000s of customers and costs 10s of thousands when you're only passing 100 homes and could do the job with a cheap 48-port switch. It's also much easier technically to get going using classical Ethernet, and more people understand that stuff, know how to source the equipment (good luck getting a vendor to return your calls about buying a single PON shelf, never mind the contract for management software etc. etc.), understand the automation options available and so on.

Both ways are doable, and can be done profitably, but PON is definitely more efficient at the scale of a major ISP.

Whether it offers a good experience is more down to competition and business decisions than the technology, and I guarantee that if your experience sucks on PON it's going to suck on any last mile technology.

Big cities and apartments are actually the one place where classical ethernet can compete with PON because you can home equipment at the building itself and cabling is relatively trivial.

madires:

--- Quote from: ve7xen on April 06, 2023, 07:00:15 pm ---
--- Quote ---When I deliver my letter to my neighbor's mailbox it's like a LAN with an ethernet switch. I don't have to know anything about routing, because that neighbor lives in the third house to the right, across the street (my MAC address table). I don't write my neighbor's full address on the envelope, just her name.

--- End quote ---

If you don't know which house she lives in, are you making copies for all your neighbours and hoping that everyone discards letters not addressed to them?  :-DD

--- End quote ---

I'm too lazy to make all the copies to flood my neighborhood. Instead I would ask a neighbor I know. BTW, flooding (BUM traffic) can be a real problem for larger LANs.

Halcyon:

--- Quote from: ve7xen on April 05, 2023, 03:17:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: Halcyon on April 05, 2023, 12:09:46 am ---It can suck, but it doesn't have to. Like with everything, if you invest a bit of money in proper gear (not those stupid consumer "mesh" products), you can actually get pretty amazing performance, even in RF noisy environments with a bit of tweaking. You'll notice most consumer devices, they like to default to channels 36 to 48 and sometimes around channel 155 down the other end of the 5 GHz ISM band. They often avoid the DFS channels altogether, even if they are better.
--- End quote ---

There's a reason I qualified it as 'relative to wired Ethernet'. It can be fine, if the equipment is okay and the setup is okay, but it's still a shared medium, with a lower maximum throughput, shorter range, and is generally much less stable even when working well. Wired 'just works'.

--- End quote ---

I would generally agree with that statement. Wired Ethernet is certainly more "plug and play" than Wi-Fi.


--- Quote from: ve7xen on April 06, 2023, 07:00:15 pm ---
--- Quote ---When I deliver my letter to my neighbor's mailbox it's like a LAN with an ethernet switch. I don't have to know anything about routing, because that neighbor lives in the third house to the right, across the street (my MAC address table). I don't write my neighbor's full address on the envelope, just her name.

--- End quote ---

If you don't know which house she lives in, are you making copies for all your neighbours and hoping that everyone discards letters not addressed to them?  :-DD
--- End quote ---

For those playing along at home, this is essentially what a hub is (as opposed to a switch). A hub is essentially just a dumb device that repeats all packets across all ports, which is why collision domains can be an important consideration in network design that incorporates hubs. I do not miss those days.

madires:
An ethernet switch does it too when it doesn't know yet how to reach the destination MAC. This is the 'U' (unknown unicast) in BUM traffic. It can also be leveraged for attacks, e.g. MAC flooding.

WiFi is unreliable by default because is uses ISM bands. At any time a neighbor can plug in a new gadget which occupies an ISM band, forcing you to change channels or the band. The bands can become so crowded that you barely get any usable throughput. And you can't do anything about this as long as the devices involved adhere to local radio regulations.

David Hess:

--- Quote from: wraper on April 02, 2023, 11:22:14 am ---IMHO it's only worth if you have some shared storage which needs fast access from multiple places.
--- End quote ---

In the past I had 10/100 Ethernet for my internet connected network, and gigabit Ethernet for local connections to my NAS.  Now I have gigabit Ethernet for my internet connected network, and 2 x 1 gigabit networks in parallel for my local connection to my NAS for a total of 3 gigabits for file transfers when using SMB 3.

I considered 10 gigabit Ethernet, however it would have cost roughly $130 for a switch, $65 for each SFP+ network interface card, and maybe $30 per cable.


--- Quote from: brucehoult on April 02, 2023, 11:29:43 am ---Depends what you're doing in your home, but 10G is slower than the read/write speed of a mediocre SSD these days, so if you're using one PC as a file server for another one (or have a NAS) you could saturate that easily enough.
--- End quote ---

With consumer hardware there are usually other performance limitations.  10G USB connected SATA3 SSDs seem to top out at about 250 MB/s.  Direct connected SATA3 SSDs are somewhat faster, but my 4 and 8 drive hard disk RAID arrays are just as fast.  If you are using Microsoft Storage Spaces then forget performance.


--- Quote from: madires on April 03, 2023, 01:32:47 pm ---If you have only short runs of ethernet cable <= 30m good old Cat5e usually works also fine with 10GBASE-T. Alternatively there's 2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T in case you need just a small boost. Beyond that I'd go for glass fiber anyway because of less trouble (high speed ethernet can be quite finicky about TP) and the upgrade path.
--- End quote ---

2.5GBASE-T and 5GBASE-T might be acceptable in some environments, like Windows only, however driver support is bad and even Intel's 2.5GBASE-T solution has problems.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod