Preface tp my question: "I am a HUGE fan of cat5 Ethernet

[G+_Sean Miller]

Preface tp my question:"I am a HUGE fan of cat5 Ethernet. If it's a statically located device, it needs to be wired to the network. That frees up wireless bandwidth to be used by truly mobile devices....and when I own my own home, I will run cat-whatever EVERYWHERE."

That said, why do I only ever see consumer-grade routers only with 4 ports on it? The synology router looks great BUT It cost 300$ and we know the gamer that buys it has half a dozen devices at the entertainment center alone that all need to connect to it, not to mention all the other devices through the rest of the house. And the manufacturers couldn't put more ports on it?

What does the architecture look like for a pretty capable network person's home? Do you get a small-business-grade switch to link all cables together, or daisy chain multiple 4-port routers? Which device assumes the main router responsibilities (DHCP, firewall, etc.): the 24-port switch or the Synology router with the latest wifi sitting between the switch and the cable modem? Do you connect modem directly to switch and then have individually cheaper wifi access points throughout house? but then you lose that great Synology intelligence managing the network...and now my head's spinning from all the possibilities...

Should the 24-port switch (assuming I can find a decent consumer grade one) be managed or dumb?

[G+_Charles Libby]

Sean Miller

I too run Cat Whatever all over my house for the same reasons. There should only be one router and it should feed a switch for more capacity. There are some 8 port switches that do the job, un-managed, but adequate. If you want bigger then there are some inexpensive (~130USD) 16 or 24 port switches. When you get this size, the switch can be managed which gives you options for VLANs allowing for traffic isolation, but now you need a much better router to configure multiple subnets as each VLAN requires a separate subnet.

[G+_George Fromtulsa]

There are some very reasonably priced MicroTik wired not WiFi Routers with multiple ports. Look at Netgear Nighthawk line for some with more wired ports and WiFi. In my humble house, I have a router next to the cable modem, then pulled Ethernet to three different locations, where it splits in one case to an unmanaged multiport switch, one to a Netgear router running in bridge, another to a Netgear extender in bridge. The full Netgear router provides ports for the Roku and Linux system used at the media center.

 

If you do get to build your dream network house, put in conduit for Ethernet, and, well, Cat5 is old stuff. I have two runs of CAT5e and one CAT 6. CAT7 is pending, if not available. Conduit would be nice. I'm not crawling around in the attic to pull newer cables. Once was enough.

 

 

mikrotik.com - MikroTik

[G+_Ben Reese]

Yup... Separate everything. Modem is its own device, router is its own device, switch is its own device, and wireless access point is its own device.

 

I'm using an older TP-Link router with OpenWRT. It's connected to an 8-port switch. A Ubiquiti UAP-AC-LR provides Wi-Fi for the whole house. My ISP provides a free modem and only charges to lease their router/modem combo that I don't want. The next piece I replace will probably be the router.

 

Though wired is preferred, I'm also not opposed to using wireless for static devices. The 802.11N or AC provides ample speed and and stability for set-top boxes, kids laptops, etc.

[G+_Todd Barnard]

Charles Libby I ran 2 runs to each room for redundancy in my last house, and ran one here but will double it up before I finish the basement. I bought 2 spools at the time, pulling from both at once.

 

I'm using the Ubiquity Edge 5 port router with 8 and 4 port TP-link switches at the end of each run.

 

The only troubles I have come from my ISP.

 

[G+_Jeff Gros]

I got a 24 port unmanaged switch on amazon prime day a few years back for like $50. But I have yet to use it anywhere...

 

I found that I don't typically need that many ports on one subnet. Separate subnets (for security) means less devices per router.

 

The most is my office, where I have an 8 port switch. A few PCs, a few raspberry pis, my oscilloscope....and that's about it.

 

If I ever buy a new house, I'll definitely put a jack on every wall of every major room, but that's more for flexibility of furniture layout.

[G+_Jared Twomey]

My home network is a Ubiquiti USG for the router, 16 port Ubiquiti switch, and 3 Ubiquiti nano-HD APs

[G+_George Fromtulsa]

Jared Twomey Impressive set up. Lots of office buildings are jealous!

[G+_Sean Miller]

Thank you all for your comments. So I want the most capable router sitting between the modem and everything else, and I can set up switches at each hub of activity, like entertainment center or office.

[G+_J Miller]

Make sure you use cat5E at the very least. Its speeds are much better than cat5. With the unmanaged switch i use, I get around 60 megs a second when transfering files from computer to computer.

[G+_Marco van Laerhoven]

Jared Twomey Similar setup - I chose an EdgerouterX and a 24 port managed EdgeSwitch light ... Love the options of the firewall and VLANs to secure my network.

[G+_Travis Hershberger]

Be careful when getting a router. The Ubiquity gear is the best you can find for the price, but turn on certain features and they will start limiting the connection speed. Now to be fair, ALL routers have this issue, even a $7000 Cisco. Which brings me to the big questions. What is your internet speed? Do you need QOS?

[G+_Sean Miller]

I don't think I need QOS, but to be honest, my current budget allows me to THINK this through. HeHeHe. For the immediate future, I'm just talking about this from a theoretical practical perspective. We aren't going to have Cisco routers in our home, so what's the next best affordable thing/system that supports a dozen or more devices. A Synology router combined with a large switch or multiple little switches/AP's spread throughout home? That kind of thing.

I pretty much got my answer with the Mikrotic brand. Looks like some good stuff. It's funny how Best Buy is usually not.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

J Miller I suppose you're talking Megabytes per Second, not megabits.

 

Sean Miller Indeed, you want your best router standing between all your subnets and the outside world. I have run plastic modem/gateway/router combos (from ISP and my own) in modem-only mode to good effect before, so you don't necessarily need to replace your current one or even rely on it's routing/firewall capabilities (and shortcomings). Just build out your cabling plant and add in new equipment as-needed.

 

I have about 20 devices on my nets, about 8 of them wireless. I have three of the TP-link 8-port switches behind my current plastic garbage Centurylink-branded but Amazon-bought combo, with the switches serving different areas of the house. Actually, one on each side of the office and one in the entertainment center, the second one in the office being for untrusted wired devices on their own subnet. Untrusted wireless devices are on an SSID and subnet of their own, as well. I know I'll go to hell for it, but I'm being lazy right now, letting the plastic unit handle the various wireless and wired subnets. There's a tech school 15 minutes away, but nobody goes out into the countryside to play haxxor around here. Too many hillbillies and meth-heads.

 

The TP-Link switches run fine for me. I've had one die, from a nearby lightning strike, but that's the only failure I've had and doesn't concern me at all. My main desktop and my homeserver are on one of them, and I often see (local) transfer speeds ranging from 85 to 105 MegaBytes per second when moving several gigs of downloaded podcasts or Linux ISOs to the server. That's ~640 to ~850-ish megabits per second. It does well enough that the storage I'm writing to across the network will be the bottleneck after several seconds of those speeds, before dropping back to a pace the drives can keep up with.

 

For WiFi, you'll base that on what you're building your network in. Every structure is it's very own, special little unicorn when it comes to WiFi. I've had to install four APs in one large split-level home to get good coverage, while getting great coverage in another three-level, even larger home with only one AP. The materials used for wall coverings, flooring, interior wall studs, ducting, and the like will have a major impact on the permeability of the home to WiFi. Special little unicorns, indeed.

 

If you think that 8k or whatever-k video streaming in future video specs will be problematic, run at least Cat 6a cabling when you build out, and you'll be set for 10Gb Ethernet switchgear. Even if you don't use 10Gb, you'll have an excellent physical layer for your Gigabit network(s).

[G+_J Miller]

Jason Marsh Yes as Windows is referencing at MB/s and Spin to spin drives.

Are those speeds you are referencing with spinning drives or SD's?

I can up to 115 MB/s from a spinning drive to a SD but thought it would be to everyones benefit to reference the spin to spin speeds as not everyone is using SD's.

[G+_J Miller]

Here is a pretty good article on which wire to use.

diffen.com - Cat5e vs Cat6 - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

[G+_Ben Reese]

J Miller I kinda have to disagree. When talking about network reliability and speed, it's better to refer to speeds showing a network bottleneck rather than a hard drive bottleneck.

 

I shared this screenshot a while back, but 4 of these drives were on my NAS connected by Gigabit networking. Despite being across the network, the drives in RAID still performed better than local HDDs.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

J Miller I'm using HDDs in my server. I've considered an SSD as cache for the storage array, but I haven't done it.

 

With ISPs playing on the public's ignorance of the difference between a megabit and a megabyte, using generally accepted language is helpful. I haven't seen a "meg" anywhere but The Family Guy , so that's why I asked you for clarification earlier. You can't ever assume that the recipient of any communication knows what you're referencing if you don't give any reference.

[G+_J Miller]

As I said earlier. I only know what W10 is telling me when I do a transfer as do may others who come to learn here. I and they do not use the tools that may give you other results.

 

My whole point is that Cat5 is much slower than Cat5E which is what was mentioned here by the OP.

So is an average of 60MB/s slow for cat5E?

Never mind as I understand that the bottleneck is probably my HDDs.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

For files and storage devices, sizes are generally expressed in MegaBytes, while networks and data bus speeds tend to be given in Megabits. In the context of these, eight bits makes a byte, so the math is straightforward. No special tools required, just a rudimentary understanding of what you're looking at.

 

So MB for MegaBytes, and Mb for Megabits.

 

Ergo, 60 MB/s would be just shy of half the one-way throughput of a Gigabit network. A 100 Megabit network could give you about 12 MB/s. 10 Mb give you hives, shingles, and a headache.

 

Keep in mind that networking hardware, not the cables connecting them, determines the negotiated speed of the network. Regular old Cat 5, properly terminated and in serviceable condition, will work in a Gigabit network.

 

I haven't looked to see if Cat 5 is still widely available, but I wouldn't use it for anything at all. Cat 5e, 6, and 6a are pretty much the only thing I see.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

KnowHow content warning!

Here's some KH Netowrking 101...

 

lmgtfy.com - LMGTFY

[G+_Patrick C]

If you feel up to it, get Cat6. Cat5e is definitely the lowest you should go. Shielded is better but costs more on either. If running by other electric or microwave so on. I personally have provider router/modem/wireless, then bridge to a smaller router. From the smaller router I run to two other small switches. Two 8 port gigabit switches is all I needed. Remember if you chain that uses two spots, so 4 port becoming 2 and 8 becoming 6 ports available.

Just add up the needs and expected growing. Printer or new Xbox down the road so on. Good luck

[G+_Sean Miller]

Patrick C Thank you very much

[G+_Jason Brown]

I went out of my way to find one with more ports. I settled on the Asus RT-AC88U. It has 8 ports, a VPN server, and blacklists. I usually go for the cheapest, dumbest router I can find. I'm so glad I sprung for this one.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

Looks like a beast. Should serve you well until Tb/s wireless comes around :)