Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!shelby!Portia!Jessica!morgan From: morgan@Jessica.stanford.edu (RL "Bob" Morgan) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Thin Ethernet cable ?? Message-ID: <858@Portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 13 Mar 89 05:08:27 GMT References: <750@aber-cs.UUCP> Sender: USENET News System Reply-To: morgan@Jessica.stanford.edu (RL "Bob" Morgan) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 30 In article <750@aber-cs.UUCP> Dave Price writes: >Frustration on our site is growing rapidly as to which >thin coax is 'correct' for thin ethernet. This isn't the answer you want, but our experience has shown that stringing as many machines/offices as possible on a piece of thin-net as close to 185 meters as possible is a False Economy and an invitation to frustration and worse. With the prices of multiport repeaters coming down as they have, the complexity of every network increasing, and the time any network manager has to fiddle around with piddly cable problems dwindling to nil, it's really worth it to insist on home runs to offices, or at most 2 to 3 offices per run, and to keep cable lengths well short of the recommended maximum if possible. I'll bet that we must have every brand of RG58-A/U and -C/U made somewhere on our campus, and I don't know of any that have failed (now, the TV guys who mixed RG59 and RG58 on some runs did have some trouble 8^). It's certainly worth it not to mix different cable batches/brands on a run (and the best way to do this is to have it be one piece of cable!). It's my impression that a properly-made connector-barrel-connector combination should present no impedance mismatch to the cable, and therefore its separation from other barrels or tees shouldn't matter at all. - RL "Bob" Morgan Networking Systems Stanford