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.