| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2236.1 | shielding | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Mon Mar 10 1997 09:41 | 11 |
| Ton
The folks who installed the Cat 5 cable in an "industrial" environment,
would have placed sheilding around the cable runs. If these cable runs
are not sheilded then you can expect to see these kind of errors. Of
course fibre would be a good solution, but why get the customer to
spend any more money when the cable installation people have yet to
finish their job?
Steven F
UK CSC
|
| 2236.2 | To shield or not to... | UTRTSC::DEKKER | | Wed Mar 12 1997 07:45 | 14 |
| re. 1
Customer has 4 Alpha's connected to a 900MX (using utp)
One is located about 6 meters apart from the MX. Cable used is BN25H.
The other systems are located about 40 meters away and use the building
wiring (plus patches)
All four systems suffer from the LEM errors, although the first one
somewhat less.
Building wiring is UTP not STP.
Should we have used shielded cabling? And if so, is there somewhere
an article which refers to such a requirement?
Ton.
|
| 2236.3 | Where are the LEMs | NPSS::KIRK | | Wed Mar 12 1997 08:52 | 8 |
| Do the LEM errors show up on the adapter cards in the Alphas, or
in the 900MX UTP ports, or both?
Can you measure the traffic load?
Dick Kirk
Network Product Support
|
| 2236.4 | 900MX for shure | UTRTSC::DEKKER | | Wed Mar 12 1997 09:26 | 11 |
| LEM erros were seen on the 900MX ports.
At that time we did not take the opportunity to look at the system
site.
Although measurements were not taken, I would guess that the load is
not really high.
Any preference for UTP or STP?
Ton
|
| 2236.5 | | NPSS::WADE | Network Systems Support | Tue Mar 18 1997 10:04 | 5 |
| Please escalate this as an IPMT case against the DEFXU product.
Bill
|
| 2236.6 | IPMT made | UTRTSC::DEKKER | | Wed Mar 19 1997 05:33 | 4 |
| Ok will raise an IPMT case for this.
Ton
|