Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request
From: celeste@coherent.com (Celeste C. Stokely)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: Thick vs. thin Ethernet
Keywords: Hardware
Message-ID: <8905101649.AA10429@frosted.coherent.com>
Date: 17 May 89 15:10:38 GMT
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Organization: Sun-Spots
Lines: 28
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
Original-Date: Wed, 10 May 89 09:49:59 PDT
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 290, message 4 of 13

In v7n277, I (celeste@coherent.com) mentioned my
"1 poor, tired cheapernet", and said we will soon "be going to thick
ethernet".

I should have been clearer. My mailbox is flooded with people telling me
that thick has no greater capacity than thin. I *KNOW* that.

Thin is grotesquely difficult to troubleshoot when you suspect physical
problems. With thick, you can shoot a TDR down it and see what's up. Also,
thin net tends to be casually installed, since it's cheaper, and the net
problems go up with the casualness of the installation.

My thin net shielding is a joke--it's the stuff that Sun provides with
3/50s and 3/60s. My thick net cable will be REALLY well shielded.

Also, we're near the ragged edge of acceptable length on our thinnet, and
I need twice the length of net cable very soon.

For a young startup with a tiny budget, thin net was fine. Now, though, we
can't afford the net problems, and we can afford the better cable and net
components.

..Celeste Stokely
Coherent Thought Inc.
UUCP:	...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!celeste   Domain: celeste@coherent.com
Internet: coherent!celeste@ames.arpa or ...@uunet.uu.net
VOICE:  415-493-8805 FAX:    415-493-1555
SNAIL:3350 W. Bayshore Rd. #205, Palo Alto CA  94303