Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:24895 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:15668
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Thin wire or twisted pair?
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.165508.22881@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 16:55:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.023620.6227@Citicorp.COM>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1991Apr12.023620.6227@Citicorp.COM> dsamperi@Citicorp.COM (Dominick Samperi) writes:
>My organization is considering the use of twisted pair point-to-point
>connections as an alternative to thin wire Ethernet... little
>tolerance for network failures (a trading floor)...

You might want to go have a look at comp.dcom.lans, where 10BaseT (standard
twisted-pair Ethernet) has had considerable discussion of late.  This isn't
really a Unix or TCP/IP issue.

(To sum up the c.d.l discussions excessively tersely...  10BaseT works well.
Relative costs are somewhat debatable; there is no huge difference, but
thinwire may still be somewhat cheaper.  10BaseT is parsecs ahead on
reliability for complex networks with large user communities, because
its star topology tends to localize failures to a single machine, whereas
thinwire takes down a whole network segment when one ignorant clod unplugs
or damages a connection.)

>Is there a throughput/bandwidth hit in using twisted pair? ...

There are slower twisted-pair technologies in use, but 10BaseT is Ethernet
in all respects as far as performance goes.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry