Gigabit Ethernet network. Gigabit Ethernet Network Adapter PCI Express Unshielded Twisted Pair Cable

I decided to upgrade my computer a little, and since I needed 2 network cards and there weren’t enough slots, then I needed a network card in a PCI-E slot. I had enough time, so I decided to buy it on Aliexpress.

I found it, completely satisfied with the description, and also for the price. When checking the seller, it turned out that the risk level is almost zero. Ordered, the parcel arrived 20 days after sending by the seller. By the way, the seller is currently having a discount or sale, but the card costs 3.63.



But since I don’t really trust Chinese manufacturers, I first looked carefully at the board. My intuition did not deceive me, the main microcircuit was soldered not only with an offset, but there were also solder sticks in three places (indicated by arrows).

I didn’t really try to figure out what these pins were responsible for, but the connections with the memory chip and the power pins, i.e., were stuck on the legs. the board is guaranteed to be undetermined, at a minimum, at a maximum I would be left without a new computer.

And of course, the funny designation for link speed in Hertz.

Without inserting it into the computer, I wrote to the seller that I received the parcel, but it does not work, the microcircuit is poorly soldered. To which he replied that they say send a video. What he was going to see there, I don’t understand. I told him that I would try to take a photo, but everything was so small that it was unlikely that he would see anything. Sent a message.

Without waiting for an answer, I took the soldering iron, removed the snot, checked the card - it worked.

The card was identified as a Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller, but because I already had Realtek drivers, then the card began to work immediately, there was no need to install anything additional.
The equipment manager writes about it -
PCI\VEN_10EC&DEV_8168&SUBSYS_816810EC&REV_02\4&293AFFCC&1&00E0

I tested the copying speed, although it all came down to the speed of the router port (I was surprised to find that I had nothing to test the card at gigabit speed), so far there is nothing to test gigabit, and to be honest, I don’t see an urgent need for it yet, 100 megabits is enough, but I haven’t seen 100 megabit PCI-E yet, so let it live. Moreover, I’m unlikely to buy it from us for this money.

As a result, I wrote to the seller that the chip was re-soldered, the card works, I will confirm receipt, but I am very dissatisfied. The workmanship is very poor. As a result, the seller offered a refund of 3 dollars, I agreed, in fact, I didn’t have any particular complaints about the seller, I made contact immediately and without problems.

But that’s not the point, the moral of this micro-review is that, just in case, before you insert a new piece of hardware into your computer, don’t be too lazy to inspect it carefully, so as not to be left without a computer at all.

In general, the delivery is excellent, the card is the most banal, the price is reasonable, delivery is fast, but the quality is quite poor.

This is probably how they assembled my network

I'm planning to buy +6 Add to favorites I liked the review +28 +50

I was in no hurry to translate mine home network from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps, which is quite strange for me since I transfer over the network a large number of files. However, when I spend money on a computer or infrastructure upgrade, I believe I should get an immediate performance boost in the apps and games I run. Many users like to treat themselves with a new video card, central processor and some gadget. However, for some reason, networking equipment does not attract such enthusiasm. Indeed, it is difficult to invest the money you earn in network infrastructure instead of another technological birthday gift.

However, my bandwidth requirements are very high, and at one point I realized that a 100 Mbit/s infrastructure was no longer enough. All my home computers already have integrated 1 Gbps adapters (on motherboards ah), so I decided to take the price list of the nearest computer company and see what I would need to convert my entire network infrastructure to 1 Gbps.

No, a home gigabit network is not that complicated at all.

I bought and installed all the equipment. I remember that it used to take about a minute and a half to copy a large file over a 100 Mbps network. After an upgrade to 1 Gbit/s, the same file began to be copied in 40 seconds. The performance increase was pleasantly pleasing, but still I did not get the tenfold improvement that could be expected from comparing the throughput of 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps of the old and new networks.

What is the reason?

For a gigabit network, all parts must support 1 Gbps. For example, if you have Gigabit network cards and associated cables installed, but the hub/switch only supports 100 Mbps, then the entire network will operate at 100 Mbps.

The first requirement is a network controller. It is best if each computer on the network is equipped with a gigabit network adapter (separate or integrated on the motherboard). This requirement is the easiest to satisfy, since most motherboard manufacturers have been integrating gigabit network controllers for the last couple of years.

The second requirement is that the network card must also support 1 Gbit/s. There is a common misconception that gigabit networks require Cat 5e cable, but in fact even old Cat 5 cable supports 1 Gbps. However, Cat 5e cables have best characteristics, so they will be more optimal solution for gigabit networks, especially if the cables are quite long. However, Cat 5e cables are still the cheapest today, since the old Cat 5 standard is already outdated. New and more expensive cables Cat 6 has even better performance for gigabit networks. We'll compare the performance of Cat 5e vs Cat 6 cables later in our article.

The third and probably most expensive component in a gigabit network is the 1 Gbps hub/switch. Of course, it is better to use a switch (perhaps paired with a router), since a hub or hub is not the most intelligent device, simply broadcasting all network data on all available ports, which leads to a large number of collisions and slows down network performance. If you need high performance, then you can’t do without a gigabit switch, since it redirects network data only to the required port, which effectively increases the network speed compared to a hub. A router usually contains a built-in switch (with multiple LAN ports) and also allows you to connect your home network to the Internet. Most home users understand the benefits of a router, so a gigabit router is a very attractive option.

How fast should gigabit be? If you hear the prefix "giga", you probably mean 1000 megabytes, while a gigabit network should provide 1000 megabytes per second. If you think so, then you are not alone. But, alas, in reality everything is different.

What is gigabit? This is 1000 megabits, not 1000 megabytes. There are 8 bits in one byte, so let's just do the math: 1,000,000,000 bits divided by 8 bits = 125,000,000 bytes. There are about a million bytes in a megabyte, so a gigabit network should provide a theoretical maximum data transfer rate of about 125 MB/s.

Sure, 125 MB/s doesn't sound as impressive as gigabit, but think about it: a network at that speed should theoretically transfer a gigabyte of data in just eight seconds. And a 10 GB archive should be transferred in just a minute and 20 seconds. The speed is incredible: just remember how long it took to transfer a gigabyte of data before USB sticks became as fast as they are today.

Our expectations were high, so we decided to transfer the file over a gigabit network and enjoy speeds close to 125 MB/s. We don't have any specialized fancy hardware: a simple home network with some old but decent technology.

Copying a 4.3 GB file from one home computer on the other it ran at an average speed of 35.8 MB/s (we ran the test five times). This is only 30% of the theoretical ceiling of a gigabit network of 125 MB/s.

What are the causes of the problem?

Selecting components for installing a gigabit network is quite simple, but getting the network to work at maximum speed is much more difficult. The factors that can cause a network to slow down are numerous, but as we've discovered, it all comes down to how fast hard disks capable of transmitting data to the network controller.

The first limitation that needs to be taken into account is the interface of the gigabit network controller with the system. If your controller is connected via an old PCI bus, the amount of data that it can theoretically transfer is 133 MB/s. For Gigabit Ethernet's 125 MB/s throughput, this seems sufficient, but remember that the PCI bus bandwidth is shared throughout the system. Each additional PCI card and many system components will use the same bandwidth, which reduces the resources available to the network card. For controllers with new PCI interface Express (PCIe) does not have such problems, since each PCIe lane provides at least 250 MB/s of bandwidth, and exclusively for the device.

The next important factor that affects network speed is cables. Many experts point out that if network cables are laid near power cables that are sources of interference, low speeds guaranteed. Long cable lengths are also problematic, as Cat 5e copper cables are certified to a maximum length of 100 meters.

Some experts recommend running cables to the new Cat 6 standard instead of Cat 5e. Often such recommendations are difficult to justify, but we will try to test the effect of cable category on a small gigabit home network.

Let's not forget about the operating system. Of course, this system is rarely used in a gigabit environment, but it is worth mentioning that Windows 98 SE (and older operating systems) will not be able to take advantage of gigabit Ethernet, since the TCP/IP stack of this operating system is barely able to load a 100-Mbps connection in to the fullest. Windows 2000 and later Windows versions are already suitable, although in older operating systems you will have to make some adjustments so that they use the network to the maximum. We will use a 32-bit OS Windows Vista for our tests, and while Vista doesn't have the best reputation for some tasks, it supports gigabit networking from the start.

Now let's move on to hard drives. Even the older IDE interface with the ATA/133 specification should be sufficient to support a theoretical file transfer speed of 133 MB/s, and the newer SATA specification fits the bill as it provides at least 1.5 Gb/s (150 MB) of throughput. /With). However, while cables and controllers can handle data transfer at such speeds, the hard drives themselves cannot.

Let's take for example a typical modern 500 GB hard drive, which should provide a constant throughput of about 65 MB/s. At the beginning of the plates (outer tracks) the speed may be higher, but as you move to the inner tracks the throughput drops. Data on internal tracks is read slower, at about 45 MB/s.

We thought we had covered all possible bottlenecks. What was left to do? We needed to run some tests and see if we could get the network performance up to the theoretical limit of 125 MB/s.

Test configuration

Test systems Server system Client system
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (Conroe), 2.66 GHz, FSB-1333, 4 MB cache Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (Kentsfield), 2.7 GHz, FSB-1200, 8 MB cache
Motherboard ASUS P5K, Intel P35, BIOS 0902 MSI P7N SLI Platinum, Nvidia nForce 750i, BIOS A2
Net Built-in Abit Gigabit LAN controller Integrated nForce 750i Gigabit Ethernet Controller
Memory Wintec Ampo PC2-6400, 2x 2048 MB, DDR2-667, CL 5-5-5-15 at 1.8 V A-Data EXTREME DDR2 800+, 2x 2048 MB, DDR2-800, CL 5-5-5-18 at 1.8 V
Video cards ASUS GeForce GTS 250 Dark Knight, 1 GB GDDR3-2200, 738 MHz GPU, 1836 MHz shader unit MSI GTX260 Lightning, 1792 MB GDDR3-1998, 590 MHz GPU, 1296 MHz shader unit
Hard drive 1 Seagate Barracuda ST3320620AS, 320 GB, 7200 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATA 300
Hard drive 2 2x Hitachi Deskstar 0A-38016 in RAID 1, 7200 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATA 300 Western Digital Caviar WD50 00AAJS-00YFA, 500 GB, 7200 rpm, 8 MB cache, SATA 300
power unit Aerocool Zerodba 620w, 620 W, ATX12V 2.02 Ultra HE1000X, ATX 2.2, 1000 W
Network switch D-Link DGS-1008D, 8-Port 10/100/1000 Unmanaged Gigabit Desktop Switch
Software and drivers
OS Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit 6.0.6001, SP1
DirectX version DirectX 10
Graphics driver Nvidia GeForce 185.85

Tests and settings

Tests and settings
Nodesoft Diskbench Version: 2.5.0.5, file Copy, Creation, Read, and Batch Benchmark
SiSoftware Sandra 2009 SP3 Version 2009.4.15.92, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Multimedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark

Before we move on to any benchmarks, we decided to test the hard drives offline to see what kind of throughput we can expect in an ideal scenario.

We have two PCs running on our home gigabit network. The first, which we will call a server, is equipped with two disk subsystems. The main hard drive is a 320 GB Seagate Barracuda ST3320620AS, a couple of years old. The server operates as a NAS with a RAID array consisting of two 1 TB hard drives Hitachi Deskstar 0A-38016, which are mirrored for redundancy.

We called the second PC on the network a client; it has two hard drives: both 500 GB Western Digital Caviar 00AAJS-00YFA, about six months old.

We first tested the speed of the server and client system hard drives to see what kind of performance we could expect from them. We used the test hard drive in SiSoftware Sandra 2009 package.

Our dreams of achieving gigabit file transfer speeds were immediately dashed. Both of the single hard drives achieved a maximum read speed of around 75 MB/s under ideal conditions. Since this test is carried out in real conditions, and the drives are 60% full, we can expect read speeds closer to the 65 MB/s index that we received from both hard drives.

But let's look at the performance of RAID 1 - the best thing about this array is that the hardware RAID controller can increase read performance by fetching data from both hard drives at the same time, similar to RAID 0 arrays; but this effect occurs (as far as we know) only with hardware RAID controllers, but not with software solutions RAID. In our tests, the RAID array delivered much faster read performance than a single hard drive, so chances are good that we'll get high network file transfer speeds from the RAID 1 array. The RAID array delivered an impressive 108 MB/s peak throughput, but at In reality, performance should be close to the 88 MB/s index, since the array is 55% full.

So we should get about 88 MB/s over a gigabit network, right? That's not nearly as close to the gigabit network's 125 MB/s ceiling, but it's much faster than 100-Mbit/s networks that have a 12.5 MB/s ceiling, so getting 88 MB/s in practice wouldn't be bad at all.

But it's not that simple. Just because the read speed of hard drives is quite high does not mean that they will write information quickly in real conditions. Let's run some disk writing tests before using the network. We'll start with our server and copy the 4.3GB image from the high-speed RAID array to the 320GB system hard drive and back again. We will then copy the file from the client's D: drive to its C: drive.

As you can see, copying from a fast RAID array to drive C: gave average speed only 41 MB/s. And copying from the C: drive to a RAID 1 array resulted in a drop of only 25 MB/s. What's happening?

This is exactly what happens in reality: hard drive C: was released a little over a year ago, but it is 60% full, probably a little fragmented, so it doesn’t break records in terms of recording. There are other factors, namely how fast the system and memory in general works. RAID 1 is made from relatively new hardware, but due to redundancy, information must be written to two hard drives at the same time, which reduces performance. Although RAID 1 can provide high read performance, write speed will have to be sacrificed. Of course, we could use a striped RAID 0 array, which gives high write and read speeds, but if one hard drive dies, then all the information will be corrupted. Overall, RAID 1 is a better option if you value the data stored on the NAS.

However, all is not lost. Digital Caviar's new 500GB drive is capable of writing our file at 70.3MB/s (average across five test runs), and also delivers a top speed of 73.2MB/s.

With that said, we were expecting a real-world maximum transfer speed of 73 MB/s over a gigabit network from the NAS RAID 1 array to the client's C: drive. We'll also test file transfers from the client's C: drive to the server's C: drive to see if we can realistically expect 40MB/s in that direction.

Let's start with the first test, in which we sent a file from the client's C: drive to the server's C: drive.

As we can see, the results correspond to our expectations. A gigabit network, theoretically capable of 125 MB/s, sends data from the client's C: drive at the fastest possible speed, probably around 65 MB/s. But as we showed above, the server's C: drive can only write at about 40 MB/s.

Now let's copy the file from the server's high-speed RAID array to drive C: client computer.

Everything turned out as we expected. From our tests, we know that the client computer's C: drive is capable of writing data at about 70 MB/s, and gigabit network performance came very close to that speed.

Unfortunately, our results do not come close to the theoretical maximum throughput of 125 MB/s. Can we test the maximum network speed? Sure, but not in a realistic scenario. We will try to transfer information across the network from memory to memory to bypass any bandwidth limitations of hard drives.

To do this, we will create a 1 GB RAM disk on the server and client PCs, and then transfer the 1 GB file between these disks over the network. Since even slow DDR2 memory is capable of transferring data at speeds of more than 3000 MB/s, network bandwidth will be the limiting factor.

We got a maximum speed of 111.4 MB/s on our Gigabit network, which is very close to the theoretical limit of 125 MB/s. An excellent result, there is no need to complain about it, since the real throughput will still not reach the theoretical maximum due to transmission additional information, errors, retransmissions, etc.

The conclusion will be as follows: today, the performance of information transfer over a gigabit network is limited by hard drives, that is, the transfer speed will be limited by the slowest hard drive participating in the process. Having answered the most important question, we can move on to speed tests depending on the cable configuration to make our article complete. Could optimizing cabling bring network speeds even closer to the theoretical limit?

Since performance in our tests was close to expected, we're unlikely to see any improvement by changing the cable configuration. But we still wanted to run tests to get closer to the theoretical speed limit.

We conducted four tests.

Test 1: default.

For this test, we used two cables about 8 meters long, each connected to a computer at one end and a gigabit switch at the other. We left the cables where they were laid, that is, next to the power cables and sockets.

This time we used the same 8-mm cables as in the first test, but moved network cable as far as possible from power cords and extension cords.

In this test, we removed one of the 8-m cables and replaced it with a meter of Cat 5e cable.

In the last test, we replaced the 8's Cat 5e cables with the 8's Cat 6 cables.

In general, our testing of different cable configurations did not show a significant difference, but conclusions can be drawn.

Test 2: reducing interference from power cables.

On small networks like our home network, tests show that you don't have to worry about running LAN cables near electrical cables, outlets, and extension cords. Of course, the interference will be higher, but this will not have a serious effect on the network speed. However, with all that said, it is better to avoid laying it near power cables, and you should remember that the situation may be different on your network.

Test 3: reduce the length of the cables.

This is not a completely correct test, but we tried to detect the difference. It should be remembered that replacing an eight-meter cable with a meter cable may result in the result being simply different cables than differences in distance. In any case, in most tests we do not see a significant difference, with the exception of an abnormal increase in throughput during copying from the client C: drive to the server C: drive.

Test 4: Replace Cat 5e cables with Cat 6 cables.

Again, we found no significant difference. Since the cables are about 8 meters long, longer cables can make a big difference. But if your length is not the maximum, then Cat 5e cables will work quite well on a home gigabit network with a distance of 16 meters between two computers.

It is interesting to note that manipulating the cables had no effect on data transfer between computer RAM disks. It's clear that some other component on the network was limiting performance to the magic number of 111 MB/s. However, such a result is still acceptable.

Do gigabit networks provide gigabit speeds? As it turns out, they almost do.

However, in real conditions, network speed will be seriously limited by hard drives. In a synthetic memory-to-memory scenario, our gigabit network produced performance very close to the theoretical limit of 125 MB/s. Regular network speeds, taking into account the performance of hard drives, will be limited to levels from 20 to 85 MB/s, depending on the hard drives used.

We also tested the effects of power cords, cable length, and upgrading from Cat 5e to Cat 6. On our small home network, none of the factors mentioned impacted performance significantly, although we do note that on a larger, larger complex network with longer lengths these factors can have a much stronger influence.

In general, if you transfer a large number of files on your home network, then we recommend installing a gigabit network. Upgrading from a 100Mbps network will give you a nice performance boost; at least you'll get a 2x increase in file transfer speeds.

Gigabit Ethernet on your home network can provide greater performance gains if you read files from a fast NAS storage device that uses hardware RAID. On our test network, we transferred a 4.3GB file in just one minute. Over a 100 Mbps connection, the same file took about six minutes to copy.

Gigabit networks are becoming more and more accessible. Now all that remains is to wait for the speeds of hard drives to rise to the same level. In the meantime, we recommend creating arrays that can overcome the limitations of modern HDD technologies. Then you can squeeze more performance out of your gigabit network.

I was in no rush to upgrade my home network from 100Mbps to 1Gbps, which is quite strange for me since I transfer a lot of files over the network. However, when I spend money on a computer or infrastructure upgrade, I believe I should get an immediate performance boost in the apps and games I run. Many users like to treat themselves with a new video card, central processor and some gadget. However, for some reason, networking equipment does not attract such enthusiasm. Indeed, it is difficult to invest the money you earn in network infrastructure instead of another technological birthday gift.

However, my bandwidth requirements are very high, and at one point I realized that a 100 Mbit/s infrastructure was no longer enough. All of my home computers already have integrated 1 Gbps adapters (on their motherboards), so I decided to take the price list of the nearest computer company and see what I would need to convert my entire network infrastructure to 1 Gbps.

No, a home gigabit network is not that complicated at all.

I bought and installed all the equipment. I remember that it used to take about a minute and a half to copy a large file over a 100 Mbps network. After an upgrade to 1 Gbit/s, the same file began to be copied in 40 seconds. The performance increase was pleasantly pleasing, but still I did not get the tenfold improvement that could be expected from comparing the throughput of 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps of the old and new networks.

What is the reason?

For a gigabit network, all parts must support 1 Gbps. For example, if you have Gigabit network cards and associated cables installed, but the hub/switch only supports 100 Mbps, then the entire network will operate at 100 Mbps.

The first requirement is a network controller. It is best if each computer on the network is equipped with a gigabit network adapter (separate or integrated on the motherboard). This requirement is the easiest to satisfy, since most motherboard manufacturers have been integrating gigabit network controllers for the last couple of years.

The second requirement is that the network card must also support 1 Gbit/s. There is a common misconception that gigabit networks require Cat 5e cable, but in fact even old Cat 5 cable supports 1 Gbps. However, Cat 5e cables have better characteristics, so they will be a more optimal solution for gigabit networks, especially if the cables are of a decent length. However, Cat 5e cables are still the cheapest today, since the old Cat 5 standard is already outdated. Newer and more expensive Cat 6 cables offer even better performance for gigabit networks. We'll compare the performance of Cat 5e vs Cat 6 cables later in our article.

The third and probably most expensive component in a gigabit network is the 1 Gbps hub/switch. Of course, it is better to use a switch (perhaps paired with a router), since a hub or hub is not the most intelligent device, simply broadcasting all network data on all available ports, which leads to a large number of collisions and slows down network performance. If you need high performance, then you cannot do without a gigabit switch, since it forwards network data only to the desired port, which effectively increases the network speed compared to a hub. A router usually contains a built-in switch (with multiple LAN ports) and also allows you to connect your home network to the Internet. Most home users understand the benefits of a router, so a gigabit router is a very attractive option.



CONTENT

Introduction

A 10/100 Mbps Ethernet-based network will be more than enough to handle any task on a small network. But what about the future? Have you thought about the video streams that will flow through your home network? Can 10/100 Ethernet handle them?

In our first article on Gigabit Ethernet, we'll take a closer look at it and determine whether you need it. We'll also look at what you'll need to build a "gigabit-ready" network and give you a quick tour of gigabit hardware for small networks.

What is Gigabit Ethernet?

Gigabit Ethernet is also known as "gigabit over copper" or 1000BaseT. It is a regular version of Ethernet operating at speeds up to 1.000 megabits per second, that is, ten times faster than 100BaseT.

The basis of Gigabit Ethernet is the IEEE standard 802.3z, which was approved in 1998. However, in June 1999, an addition was released to it - the gigabit Ethernet standard over copper twisted pair 1000BaseT. It was this standard that was able to bring Gigabit Ethernet out of server rooms and backbones, ensuring its use in the same conditions as 10/100 Ethernet.

Before the advent of 1000BaseT, gigabit Ethernet required the use of fiber optic or shielded copper cables, which can hardly be called convenient for laying conventional local networks. These cables (1000BaseSX, 1000BaseLX and 1000BaseCX) are still used in specialized applications today, so we will not consider them.

The 802.3z Gigabit Ethernet group has done a great job, releasing a universal standard that is ten times faster than 100BaseT. 1000BaseT is also backwards compatible with 10/100 equipment, it uses CAT-5 cable (or higher category). By the way, today a typical network is built on the basis of category 5 cable.

Do we need him?

Early literature on Gigabit Ethernet identified the enterprise market as the application area for the new standard, most commonly data storage communications. Since Gigabit Ethernet provides ten times the bandwidth of conventional 100BaseT, a natural use for the standard is to connect areas that require high bandwidth. This is the communication between servers, switches and backbone nodes. This is where Gigabit Ethernet is needed, needed and useful.

As the price of gigabit hardware has fallen, the scope of 1000BaseT has expanded to "power user" and workgroup computers using "bandwidth-hungry applications."

Since most small networks have modest data needs, they are unlikely to ever need the bandwidth of a 1000BaseT network. Let's look at some typical small network applications and evaluate their need for Gigabit Ethernet.

Do we need him, continuation

  • Broadcast large files over the network

    Such an application is more typical for small offices, especially in companies involved in graphic design, architecture, or other businesses associated with processing files of tens to hundreds of megabytes in size. You can easily calculate that a 100MB file will be transferred over a 100BaseT network in just eight seconds [(100MB x 8bit/byte)/100Mbit/s]. In reality, many factors degrade the transfer speed, so your file will take a little longer to transfer. Some of these factors are related to operating system, running applications, the amount of memory on your computers, processor speed, and age. (The age of the system affects the speed of the buses on the motherboard.)

    Another important factor is speed network equipment, and moving to gigabit hardware eliminates a potential bottleneck and speeds up transfers of large volumes of files. Many will confirm that obtaining speeds above 50 Mbps on a 100BaseT network is by no means trivial. Gigabit Ethernet can provide throughput above 100 Mbit/s.

  • Network redundancy devices

    You can think of this case as a “large files” case. If your network is configured to back up all computers to one file server, then Gigabit Ethernet will allow you to speed up this process. However, there is also a pitfall here - increasing the “pipe” of transmission to the server may not lead to a positive effect if the server does not have time to process the incoming data stream (this also applies to the backup media).

    To benefit from a high-speed network, you should equip your server with a large amount of memory and reserve for fast HDD, not a tape or CDROM. As you can see, you should thoroughly prepare for the transition to gigabit Ethernet.

  • Client-server applications

    This application is again more common in small business networks than in home networks. A large amount of data can be transferred between the client and server in such applications. The approach is the same: you need to analyze the amount of network data being transmitted to find out whether the application can “keep up” with the increase in network bandwidth and whether this data is enough to support the gigabit Ethernet load.

In truth, we think it's unlikely that most home network builders will find much reason to buy gigabit equipment. For small business networks, upgrading to gigabit can help, but we recommend first analyzing the amount of data being transferred. With the current state everything is clear. But what if you want to take into account the possibility of future modernization. What do you need to do today to be ready for it? In the next part of our article, we will look at the changes that need to be made to the most expensive, and most often the most time-consuming, part of the network - cable.

Gigabit Ethernet Cable

As we mentioned in the introduction, one of the key requirements of the 1000BaseT standard is the use of Category 5 (CAT 5) or higher cable. That is, gigabit Ethernet Can work on existing Category 5 cable structure. Agree, this opportunity is very convenient. As a rule, everything modern networks use Category 5 cable unless your network was installed in 1996 or earlier (the standard was approved in 1995). However, here exists several pitfalls.

  • Four pairs required

    As can be seen from this article 1000BaseT uses all four pairs of Category 5 (or higher) cable to create four 250 Mbps channels. (Another coding scheme, five-level pulse amplitude modulation, is also used to stay within frequency range 100 MHz CAT5). As a result, we can use the existing CAT 5 cabling structure for Gigabit Ethernet.

    Because 10/100BaseT uses only two of the four CAT 5 pairs, some people did not connect the extra pairs when laying out their networks. Pairs were used, for example, for telephone or Power over Ethernet (POE). Fortunately, gigabit network cards and switches are smart enough to fall back to the 100BaseT standard if all four pairs are unavailable. Therefore, your network will in any case work with gigabit switches and network cards, but you will not get high speed for the money paid.

  • Don't use cheap connectors

    Another problem for amateur networkers is poor crimping and cheap wall sockets. They lead to impedance mismatches, resulting in return loss and resulting reduced throughput. Of course, you can try to look for the reason directly, but it is still better to get a network tester that can detect return loss and crosstalk. Or just accept the low speed.

  • Length and topology restrictions

    1000BaseT is limited to the same maximum segment length as 10/100BaseT. Thus, the maximum network diameter is 200 meters (from one computer to another through one switch). As for the 1000BaseT topology, the same rules apply as for 100BaseT, except that only one repeater per network segment (or, to be more precise, per “half-duplex collision domain”) is allowed. But since Gigabit Ethernet doesn't support half-duplex transmission, you can forget about the last requirement. In general, if your network was fine under 100BaseT, you should have no problems moving to gigabit.

Gigabit Ethernet Cable, continued

For laying new networks it is best to use cable CAT 5e. And although CAT 5 and CAT 5e both pass 100 MHz frequency, CAT5e cable is manufactured taking into account additional parameters important for better transmission of high-frequency signals.

Review the following Belden documents to learn more about CAT 5e cable specifications:

And while a modern CAT 5 cable will work fine with 1000BaseT, you're still better off choosing CAT 5e if you want to guarantee high throughput. If you are hesitant, estimate the cost of CAT 5 and CAT 5e cable and proceed within your means.

The only thing you should avoid is buying advice. CAT 6 Gigabit Ethernet cable. CAT 6 was added to TIA-568 standard in June 2002 and it skips frequencies up to 200 MHz. Sellers will probably try to persuade you to buy the more expensive sixth category, but you will only need it if you plan to build a network 10 Gbps Ethernet over copper wiring, which is this moment hardly realistic. What about CAT 7 cable? Forget about him!

If you have a good amount of money, then it is better to spend it on network specialist, which has sufficient experience in laying gigabit networks. A specialist will be able to properly install cables or test your existing network to work with Gigabit Ethernet. When installing a CAT 6 cable, we highly recommend seeking professional help, as this cable requires a bend radius and special quality connectors.

Gigabit equipment

In some ways, the question of “gigabit or not” might have been a point of contention a year or a couple of years ago. From a SOHO buyer's perspective, the transition from 10 to 10/100 Mbps has already happened. New computers are equipped with 10/100 Ethernet ports, routers already use built-in 10/100 switches rather than 10BaseT hubs. However, such a change is not a consequence of the demands and wishes of home networkers. They are content with existing equipment.

For these changes we should thank corporate users, who today buy only 10/100 equipment in mass quantities, which allows them to lower their prices. Once consumer equipment manufacturers discovered that using 10BaseT chips versus 10/100 options expensive, they didn’t think twice about it.

Thus, yesterday's architecture based on 10BaseT hubs has quietly moved into modern 10/100 switched networks. We will experience exactly the same transition from 10/100 to 10/100/1000 Mbit/s. And although there is still a year or two left until the turning point, the transition has already started and prices continue to steadily fall.

All you need is to buy a gigabit network card and a gigabit switch. Let's look at them in a little more detail.

  • Network cards

    Branded 32-bit PCI 10/100/1000BaseT network cards such as Intel PRO1000 MT, Netgear GA302T and SMC SMC9552TX cost from $40 to $70 on the Internet. Products from second-tier manufacturers are about $5 cheaper. And while Gigabit NICs are about two and a half times more expensive than the average 10/100 card, it's unlikely your wallet will notice any difference at all unless you buy them in bulk.

    You can find network cards that support not only the 32-bit PCI bus, but also the 64-bit one, but they also cost more. What you won't see are CardBus adapters for your laptops. For some reason, manufacturers believe that laptops do not need gigabit networks at all.

  • Switches

    But the price of 10/100/1000 switches makes you think ten times about the advisability of switching to gigabit Ethernet. The good news is that transparent gigabit switches are available today and cost much less than their managed counterparts for the enterprise market.

    A simple four-port 10/100/1000 switch, the Netgear GS104 can be purchased for less than $225. If you opt for lesser-known companies like TRENDnet TEG-S40TXE, you will reduce the cost to $150. Four ports are not enough - please. The eight-port version of the Netgear GS108 will cost you about $450, and the TRENDnet TEG-S80TXD will cost you about $280.

    Considering that a five-port 10/100 switch today costs only $20, gigabit prices may seem too high to some. But remember: not long ago, you could only buy managed gigabit switches that cost $100+ per port. Prices are going in the right direction!

Will I have to change computers?

Let's let you in on a little gigabit Ethernet secret: Under Win98 or 98SE, you most likely won't get any benefit from gigabit speeds. And while you can try to improve throughput by editing the registry, you still won't get a significant performance boost over current 10/100 hardware.

The problem lies in the Win98 TCP/IP stack, which was not designed with high-speed networks in mind. The stack has problems even using 100BaseT network, why then talk about gigabit communication! We will return to this issue in the second article, but for now you should only consider Win2000 And WinXP for working with gigabit Ethernet.

With the last sentence we are by no means Not We mean that only Windows 2000 and XP support gigabit network cards. We simply haven't tested performance under other operating systems, so please refrain from making sarcastic comments!

If you're wondering whether you'll have to throw out your good old computer and buy a new one to use Gigabit Ethernet, the answer is "maybe." Judging by our practical experience, one hertz of "modern" processors equals one bit per second of network bandwidth. One of the manufacturers of gigabit network equipment agreed with us: any machine with clock frequency 700 MHz or lower will not be able to take full advantage of Gigabit Ethernet bandwidth. So even with the right operating system, gigabit Ethernet is like a poultice for old computers. You'll see speed sooner 100-500 Mbit/s

Computer