Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!davecb
From: davecb@yunexus.YorkU.CA (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Thick or Thin Ethernet?
Message-ID: <20519@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 16 Jan 91 14:23:27 GMT
References: <3832@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: York U. Computing Services
Lines: 21

lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
| The network specialist here advised thick-net.  As I understood, his main
| concern was that the BNC connections occassionally go bad or get knocked out. 
| Is this really enough to merit the extra expense and hassle of thick-net?

  For permanent, in-ceiling, long cables with machines that have thick-ethernet
drop cable connectors, thicknet is ok, sort of.  Individual machines may fall
off the net if the drop cable connectors fail (as they do!), but the net stays
up until someone whacks a tranceiver.
  For non-permanent, short cables, thin is ok, sort of.  Machines rarely fall
off the net for mechnical reasons, but people can accidentally break the whole
net by disconnecting cables.

  We're stopped using thicknet years ago...

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Even cannibals don't usually eat their
CANADA. 416-223-8968  | friends.