Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:7638 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:15489
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!basset.utah.edu!haas
From: haas%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Walt Haas)
Subject: Re: 10BaseT installation
Date: 3 Apr 91 12:15:21 MST
Message-ID: <1991Apr3.121521.5177@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
References: <5438@durin.sparta.COM> <1991Apr3.153750.19033@jhereg.osa.com>

In article <1991Apr3.153750.19033@jhereg.osa.com> andrew@jhereg.osa.com (Andrew C. Esh) writes:
>
>If anyone is interested, I can write a longer posting on the ins and outs
>of 10baseT, and the experiences I and my co-workers have had with it.

I'd be interested.  We have started to do 10BASE-T for offices where there
is little chance that a second computer will be added.  Thinnet still wins
for student bullpens and labs with lots of machines in one room.  The cost
to us is about $300 + wiring per computer for 10BASE-T.  Thinnet cost is
a little more than half that.  The big win with 10BASE-T is the situation
where a computer locked in somebody's office goes nuts and starts to hose
the network, or where somebody unplugs their cable.  With 10BASE-T we don't
have to check every office, we just check the hub, and wiring faults are
dealt with automatically.

In engineering offices where there are likely to be additional computers we
still like the hub idea, but set up a multiport thinnet repeater and assign
a port to an office.  This gives us the same automatic recovery from wiring
faults, at a slightly greater cost per office than 10BASE-T, with the
chance to inexpensively add up to 14 more computers per office.

-- Walt Haas     haas@ski.utah.edu