On Tuesday 31 January 2006 23:14, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

On 1/31/06 11:20 PM, "JB" wrote:

...

Hi gang,

My girlfriend recently got satellite internet. Her daughter of course needs to use it also (as will I soon). I thought a router would be the thing to use for all 3 of us to hook into to use the 'net, but a friend here said a hub/switch will be just fine. Which is better? Which would allow all 3 of us to be 'online' at the same time the best (meaning, which/what would try to even out the bandwidth we use if all 3 of us were online at one time?)? Is the switch good enough? It seems to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better.

Thanks,

JB

There is a big difference in a hub, a router, and a switch.

A hub shares the bandwidth with each computer connected. (the more computers connected, the slower each is.)

A switch gives each computer the full 100Bt connection speed. (or what ever your network is.)

A router* does just what the name implies.

*Some routers have a 5 or 8 switch built in...

What you want is a switch. They are very, very cheap nowadays. (think "down the road"...get a gigabit switch) $20 such as: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=313920&pfp=ca t 3

Now, after all that's said, I don't think you will notice any speed difference in just sharing the satellite connection with not going gigabit. ;) The speed can't be THAT fast... It just makes more sense ($) to get a gigabit if you are going to buy something.

Perfect! I IM'd her to check what it was I got and it's a switch. So looks like we'll be okay. Thanks for the input! It really made my year! Take care and be healthy, JB

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 12:14 am, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

On 1/31/06 11:20 PM, "JB" wrote:

...

Hi gang,

My girlfriend recently got satellite internet. Her daughter of course needs to use it also (as will I soon). I thought a router would be the thing to use for all 3 of us to hook into to use the 'net, but a friend here said a hub/switch will be just fine. Which is better? Which would allow all 3 of us to be 'online' at the same time the best (meaning, which/what would try to even out the bandwidth we use if all 3 of us were online at one time?)? Is the switch good enough? It seems to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better.

Thanks,

JB

There is a big difference in a hub, a router, and a switch.

A hub shares the bandwidth with each computer connected. (the more computers connected, the slower each is.)

A switch gives each computer the full 100Bt connection speed. (or what ever your network is.)

A router* does just what the name implies.

*Some routers have a 5 or 8 switch built in...

What you want is a switch. They are very, very cheap nowadays. (think "down the road"...get a gigabit switch) $20 such as: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=313920&pfp=ca t 3

Now, after all that's said, I don't think you will notice any speed difference in just sharing the satellite connection with not going gigabit. ;) The speed can't be THAT fast... It just makes more sense ($) to get a gigabit if you are going to buy something.

Hate to disagree, but I think you really wanted a Router, probably with a firewall built it, and possibly with wireless capabilities as well. Typically, the service provider only allows you to have a single IP address, usually dynamically assigned. They think that corresponds to one computer. The router will do NAT, making all the internal computers look like one external one. It will also limit how much of your internal network is visible from the outside. Most routers also include a 4-port switch. Prices are under $100 US. Some routers even have embedded linux internally, and there are projects that allow custom versions of linux with special features. See OpenWRT.org Paul Alfille

2.4 Mhz G Routers can easily be had for $20 (after rebate) to $40-60 before rebate. I have seen non-wireless units going for $9.99. Check out Amazon or Buy. Cheers, ed On Wednesday 01 February 2006 03:51, Paul Alfille wrote:

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 12:14 am, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

...

On 1/31/06 11:20 PM, "JB" wrote:

...

Hi gang,

My girlfriend recently got satellite internet. Her daughter of course needs to use it also (as will I soon). I thought a router would be the thing to use for all 3 of us to hook into to use the 'net, but a friend here said a hub/switch will be just fine. Which is better? Which would allow all 3 of us to be 'online' at the same time the best (meaning, which/what would try to even out the bandwidth we use if all 3 of us were online at one time?)? Is the switch good enough? It seems to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better.

Thanks,

JB

There is a big difference in a hub, a router, and a switch.

A hub shares the bandwidth with each computer connected. (the more computers connected, the slower each is.)

A switch gives each computer the full 100Bt connection speed. (or what ever your network is.)

A router* does just what the name implies.

*Some routers have a 5 or 8 switch built in...

What you want is a switch. They are very, very cheap nowadays. (think "down the road"...get a gigabit switch) $20 such as: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=313920&pfp= ca t 3

Now, after all that's said, I don't think you will notice any speed difference in just sharing the satellite connection with not going gigabit. ;) The speed can't be THAT fast... It just makes more sense ($) to get a gigabit if you are going to buy something.

Hate to disagree, but I think you really wanted a Router, probably with a firewall built it, and possibly with wireless capabilities as well.

Typically, the service provider only allows you to have a single IP address, usually dynamically assigned. They think that corresponds to one computer.

The router will do NAT, making all the internal computers look like one external one. It will also limit how much of your internal network is visible from the outside. Most routers also include a 4-port switch.

Prices are under $100 US.

Some routers even have embedded linux internally, and there are projects that allow custom versions of linux with special features. See OpenWRT.org

Paul Alfille

-- --------------------------------------------- There are no stupid questions, just stupid answers.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Alfille" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Question about 'net connection/sharing

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 12:14 am, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

...

On 1/31/06 11:20 PM, "JB" wrote:

...

Hi gang,

My girlfriend recently got satellite internet. Her daughter of course needs to use it also (as will I soon). I thought a router would be the thing to use for all 3 of us to hook into to use the 'net, but a friend here said a hub/switch will be just fine. Which is better? Which would allow all 3 of us to be 'online' at the same time the best (meaning, which/what would try to even out the bandwidth we use if all 3 of us were online at one time?)? Is the switch good enough? It seems to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better.

Hate to disagree, but I think you really wanted a Router, probably with a firewall built it, and possibly with wireless capabilities as well.

Typically, the service provider only allows you to have a single IP address, usually dynamically assigned. They think that corresponds to one computer.

The router will do NAT, making all the internal computers look like one external one. It will also limit how much of your internal network is visible from the outside. Most routers also include a 4-port switch.

Prices are under $100 US.

Some routers even have embedded linux internally, and there are projects that allow custom versions of linux with special features. See OpenWRT.org

Paul Alfille

What you need to find out is what's connecting the other two users to the internet connection at the moment, a router may well be in place already. If your connection is not high speed then this may all be purely academic. The Hub or Switch decision will have little impact on an internet connection smaller than approx 4.5 Mbps, which is the theoretical maximum you can get from a 10 Mbps half duplex hub (The Hub equivalent of the lowest for of life). A Switch will give you a "dedicated" or rather switched 100 <or insert switch port and corresponding NIC speed here> Mbps across the LAN, but you can never achieve 100 Mbps over an internet connection which is not 100 Mbps or more in capacity so having a 100 Mbps link to it . A Switch will however let you copy files from one PC to the Other more quickly, so for that size of network it can't really hurt A firewall is also a VERY good idea, some might even say essential.

suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

On 1/31/06 11:20 PM, "JB" wrote:

...

Hi gang,

My girlfriend recently got satellite internet. Her daughter of course needs to use it also (as will I soon). I thought a router would be the thing to use for all 3 of us to hook into to use the 'net, but a friend here said a hub/switch will be just fine. Which is better? Which would allow all 3 of us to be 'online' at the same time the best (meaning, which/what would try to even out the bandwidth we use if all 3 of us were online at one time?)? Is the switch good enough? It seems to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better.

Thanks,

JB

There is a big difference in a hub, a router, and a switch.

A hub shares the bandwidth with each computer connected. (the more computers connected, the slower each is.)

A switch gives each computer the full 100Bt connection speed. (or what ever your network is.)

A router* does just what the name implies.

*Some routers have a 5 or 8 switch built in...

What you want is a switch. They are very, very cheap nowadays. (think "down the road"...get a gigabit switch) $20 such as: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=313920&pfp=cat 3

A "router" is necessary, if he only gets on IP address from the ISP.\

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 06:27, James Knott wrote:

It seems

...

...

to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In order to use a switch or hub, you'd need 3 IP addresses from the ISP.  If you get only one, you need a "router".  Also, those routers provide a firewall function that's essential, if any of the computers is running Windows.

If he already has two computers hooked to the connection and things are working well, then it would appear that whatever box he is currently using is also a router.... and doing NAT.

JB, On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:02, JB wrote:

...

Thanks to everyone for all the help. I'm slowly getting this network stuff around my head, heh.

That's likely to leave you looking like a Borg.

JB

RRS

Bruce Marshall wrote:

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 06:27, James Knott wrote:

...

It seems

...

...

to be working well enough for the two of them as it is, but I'm just curious if there's something that might be any better. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In order to use a switch or hub, you'd need 3 IP addresses from the ISP. If you get only one, you need a "router". Also, those routers provide a firewall function that's essential, if any of the computers is running Windows.

If he already has two computers hooked to the connection and things are working well, then it would appear that whatever box he is currently using is also a router.... and doing NAT.

If that's the case, he likely already has a 4 port router and doesn't need anymore hardware. It would be nice if the OP posted more details, so we wouldn't have to speculate so much.