wired vs wireless network

I currently have a 100M home network. Currently all the servers are
going into a 100M Netgear switch (max distance 7 feet). Then that
has a 25 foot run to a cheap 100 hub. The hub has multiple runs
from 30 to 80 feet.

The problem is thus: I need to hook a computer up in my daughters
room. Currently I tried running a 100 foot cable from one of the 80
foot leads and everything si VERY slow on the hub. I believe that
if I ran a wire to her room, I would be looking at around 120 foot
run from the cheap hub, is that too long? Would a better hub or
moving to a switch allow that long of a run on CAT-5? I want
reliability, not cost savings here. Cisco is a bit too much,
though:)

Another option would be to go wireless. I can place a wireless HUB
in the first floor office, which is open to the two story entry way,
which is open to my daughters bedroom. I think it is about 30 or 40
feet by line of site. The office is at the end of the 30 foot run
from the hub. The big question is: What wireless HUB and
PCI/USB based card is the best to use? I am more interested in
reliability then low cost. I HATE it when networks are down!

Which option would you go for? What hardware would you use to make
things work the best?

Sam

Hello Sam,

Sam Carleton wrote:

> I want
> reliability, not cost savings here. Cisco is a bit too much,
> though:)

No need for that. Amplifying/repeating the signal should work as well. Found
an interesting URL to this problem:

http://www.pmg.com/otw_nwsl/98_w_ethernet.htm

What about placing a cheap office hub somewhere half way to repeat the
signal? Maybe even with a WLAN capability? So your office at one end and
the living area would be both at abt. 60ft distance. When you place another
office hub to uplink the office ressources to your new "backbone" you
almost have the same infrastructure as before, but no oversized line with
starving signals.

HTH
Torsten Kaiser

"Torsten Kaiser" <NOSPAMPLEASE@pcdweb.de> schreef in bericht
news:bsnjke$838$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hello Sam,
>
> Sam Carleton wrote:
>
> > I want
> > reliability, not cost savings here. Cisco is a bit too much,
> > though:)
>
> No need for that. Amplifying/repeating the signal should work as well.
Found
> an interesting URL to this problem:
>
> http://www.pmg.com/otw_nwsl/98_w_ethernet.htm
>
> What about placing a cheap office hub somewhere half way to repeat the
> signal? Maybe even with a WLAN capability? So your office at one end and
> the living area would be both at abt. 60ft distance. When you place
another
> office hub to uplink the office ressources to your new "backbone" you
> almost have the same infrastructure as before, but no oversized line with
> starving signals.
>
> HTH
> Torsten Kaiser
>

Depends a bit in my view. That's why I am using both cables and Wifi at
home, functioning through several walls. If the connection you want to make
to your daughters room is only to be used for the internet Wifi is ok and
easy to install. No cables involved. Be sure to buy all wifi equipment of 1
branch (Syslink is not bad and btw since about a year owned by Cisco)
otherwise you might experience incompatabillity especially in the WEP
encryption. This functions also very lovely if you have a laptop! Or your
daughter is replacing the furniture in her room:) Btw a Wifi hub is called a
WAP and not a hub, since it has more (special to Wifi) functionality then a
switch/hub. You will need one WAP and can effectivly connect up to 50 users.

On the other hand, if you also want to fe transfer large files or make
backups etc cables just are faster since Wifi runs at about 10 MB (or 50 MB)
whereas cables run at 100MB.

Richard.