Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!AQUA.WHOI.EDU!mep
From: mep@AQUA.WHOI.EDU (Michael E. Pare)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Thick or Thin
Message-ID: <8910022022.AA09420@aqua.whoi.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 89 20:22:21 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26


You've seen pros and cons of both.  The biggest problem with both is in trying
to run wiring from the host to the 'backbone' whatever it may be.  Thick is
a pain if you have several machines in the same area, each requires a drop
using bulky transceiver cable, and you can quickly run out of space on the
cable (2.5m between transceivers) unless you use a multiport transceiver,
but you are still stuck with bulky transceiver cables.  An entire backbone
of Thinnet is clumsy and can easily lead to wiring faults and hard to trace
network problems, and has severe node limitations.

One escape may see a thick ethernet backbone with thick-to-thin repeaters
used to hook up local groupings of hosts.  One repeater can support say 8
areas, with each area supporting several machines (or just one).  This
provides better fault isolation and enables a large node installation.

I would definitely suggest you look into twisted pair format (as someone
mentioned).  This can be the least costly to install if the twisted pairs
(just one using 3COM's system, or two for Synoptics or eventually the 
10BASET standard) are already available.  You can even install the twisted
pairs separately for a lower cost than trying to run a lot of coax.  This
method provides for the best fault isolation and is the easiest to support
if people move around, as well as allowing for a large node installation.

I've installed and supported all three and twisted pair wins hands down.
By the way, 3COM's twisted pair ethernet is based on thinnet technology
while Synoptics is more based on thick.