Direct connection vs use of network switch

[RugbyFan]

Whilst having some building work done I’ve taken the opportunity to have a few hard wired Ethernet ports installed. The Cat 6 cable from each of these new Ethernet ports goes into my garage which is next to the room with my router. Into one of these new ports I intend to connect another router (as an access point) to improve the wireless signal within the house. The other ports will be used for TVs, etc and in due course probably another computer.

My current broadband speed with just my current PC plugged into my router isn’t great (about 4.5Mb) but this is OK for our current needs. However, ideally I don’t what the speed to reduce too much.

I’m assuming that the ‘best’ way would be to plug the Cat 6 cables directly into the LAN ports at the back of my router. However, this will look very untidy as, unless I move the router into the garage (which I don’t really want to do), I’ll have all of these cables going through the wall.

I think the ‘neatest’ solution would be to connect one of the LAN ports on my router to an Ethernet port on the wall (between the room with the router and the garage), and then to have Cat 6 cable out of the back of this port connected to the Cat 6 cable from the new Ethernet ports via a Gigabit network switch.

There are no doubt other solutions that are somewhere in between.

I’m concerned that the ‘neat’ solution will result in too great a loss of speed/performance but I’ve been unable to find out if this will be the case - have tried a few shops and my ISP to no avail.

I guess what I’m essentially asking is does connecting devices to my router via a network switch and/or Ethernet ports mid way significantly reduce speed or any other aspects of performance.

 

[USAFRet]

Generically:

ISP -> Modem/Router -> switch -> devices.
Assuming everything has gigabit ports, you will see no slowdown in communication among the devices.

 

[photonboy]

1) Your connection from your MODEM to the WWW via your ISP is limited by whatever your ISP supports usually and not a limitation of your local home network.

For example, I get under 1MB/sec coming into my house but get 6MB/sec or greater on wi-fi and 60MB/second over the local Wired Ethernet (to my WDMYCLOUD device). A gigabit Router is capable of over 100MB/second over Ethernet cables (Cat5 or higher).

2) Gigabit Switch - the only point of this is to share an Ethernet cable such as running a single wire up to the top floor and connecting your PC, media box, and game console to it

3) Wi-Fi should be extended via a WI-FI RANGE EXTENDER, not by simply adding another router. You don't really want multiple routers as that can cause various issues.
http://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-range-extenders/

 

[Eximo]

Not really, it would add the latency of the circuitry but not effect speed. CAT6 can run huge amounts of bandwidth. Compared to your internet speed you won't notice it at all as long as you have at least 100Mbps routers and switches. 1Gbps is the more common standard these days.

 

[photonboy]

"I guess what I’m essentially asking is does connecting devices to my router via a network switch and/or Ethernet ports mid way significantly reduce speed or any other aspects of performance."

I agree not likely.
A Gigabit Switch is just sharing the same cable so is multiplexing multiple signals over it though often only one is heavily used anyway, like Netflix.

*In theory, I suppose you could see a loss of performance but not in normal practice. For example, let's say you had all FIVE INPUTS being multiplexed at the max bandwidth of say a bit over 20MB/second. I bet the hardware inside the Gigabit Switch wouldn't actually be able to handle that load. I could be wrong, and it's academic anyway as it's just not something a normal person would do in any scenario.

So I guess I'm agreeing with Eximo though you do appear to need to rethink your overall strategy (read my first comment if you haven't yet).

*I did a lot of research before buying my Gigabit switch and it's worked great. It's the TPLink TP-SG1005D though there may be newer by now.

 

[RugbyFan]

Thanks for your replies. It seems that the 'neat' solution should work fine.

In terms of extending the Wi-Fi range, from the online research I've done, I thought the best solution is to have a wired link to the second device that transmits the Wi-Fi. I thought extenders used a wireless link and alsothat routers could be configured in such a way that they essentially just transmit a wireless signal. If necessary, I could turn off the wireless signal from my main router and just use a wireless signal from the second device as that will be far more centrally located and will probably cover the whole house.

 

[photonboy]

Thanks for your replies. It seems that the 'neat' solution should work fine.

In terms of extending the Wi-Fi range, from the online research I've done, I thought the best solution is to have a wired link to the second device that transmits the Wi-Fi. I thought extenders used a wireless link and alsothat routers could be configured in such a way that they essentially just transmit a wireless signal. If necessary, I could turn off the wireless signal from my main router and just use a wireless signal from the second device as that will be far more centrally located and will probably cover the whole house.

What you're talking about with the Router is a messy way to do basically what a wi-fi extender already does but there's a good chance you'll run into problems. There are some routers with a "range extender mode" but then you'd be buying a second router for more than extender and only using the extender portion. For most people it doesn't make much sense, and you'd still have to carefully research which one to get and set as the primary router, etc, etc so it works properly.

The wi-fi extender can just plug into a power socket so you don't need to run a long cable to it from the existing router; actually I don't know if you need a cable if using "range extender mode" but again I don't recommend a second router. Setup is basically:
a) Find the power socket in the best spot, then
b) Plug in the extender.

I haven't done much research, but you can get a 2.4GHz "N" extender for as little as $28:
http://www.ncix.com/detail/linksys-re1000-wireless-n-range-e9-63944-1286.htm
or
http://www.ncix.com/detail/trendnet-tew-737hre-n300-high-power-3b-90358-1286.htm
or
http://www.ncix.com/detail/linksys-re2000-wireless-n300-range-35-80268-1286.htm (Dual-Band only needed if you have a dual-band router AND you need faster than 2.4GHz can provide, or have 2.4GHz interface interference such as a phone and require the 5GHz network.)

Most have an Ethernet connector to plug in a wired PC or device which would then connect wirelessly through it back to the router. If a device is close enough to connect and already has a Wi-Fi adapter you could just connect with the Ethernet cable and save the USB Wi-Fi adapter for somewhere else in the house if needed.

*All you have to do, is put the extender roughly in the MIDDLE of the sphere of usage. About half-way between the original router and the longest distance you need to access both vertically and horizontally.

So the wi-fi extenders are cheaper, easier to setup, and don't require a long Ethernet cable back to the main router. You can also use several of them if you want.

 

[bill001g]

Your problem is that people use the word extender/repeater inconstantly.

When you use a cable to connect between the main router and the second wireless device you are running a AP. Very technically it is repeating the signal from ethernet to wireless but a better word for this is bridge. There is very little downside to using this method to expand your wireless network. This is how large entrprise wireless is done. You run lots of AP connected to central locations via wires.

The other is a actual wireless repeaters. There are 2 forms. One has 2 radios one to talk to the main router and a second to talk to the end clients. Here you have 2 radio signals but they do not overlap so other than the 2 radio signals this is a ok solution. The more common repeaters you can get for $20 use only a single radio and retransmit the signal it receives from the main router right back over the top. You at a very minimum get a 50% loss of speed and you many times get much more because you have intentionally caused interference between these device. Wireless shares the radio bandwidth very poorly.

Years ago when people only had a single router and repeaters were only sold to commercial customers they only made the kind that has 2 radios. Now in the race to sell the cheapest junk you only find the single radio devices unless you look very very hard.

You should never use a wireless repeater unless there is no other option.


Running a second router as a AP in your house is a very good option. It still requires you think about radio channels to avoid interference between the devices but unlike repeaters you do not have interference built into the design.