Ok, so I have made some modifications to my home network now that I have built a new PC, and demoted my old one to server duties.
Things were fine before, where I had a direct connection from the PC (with all media files) into my Sky Q hub, then the other Q port into a switch. From here, it fed out to my other devices in my office, then into a single channel TP-Link 1200 MBPS powerline adaptor.
I then had another one of these adaptors in the bedroom, and two triple channel ones, one in the lounge, the other in the cinema.
Now though, the server has been moved to the cinema room. So all media traffic is now going through the powerlines, whether it is going via wifi, or too my TV's (albeit there is now no need for this in the cinema).
Anyway, I also have a mini Q box or whatever (for multi-room) in beside the server. It has done a decent job of boosting the wifi strength at this side of the house.
But I appear to be having some bottlenecking going on. So if my kids are each watching something on plex on their tablets, I don't appear to have the bandwidth left for me to watch something in the lounge. Probably because all traffic now has to go through this powerline network now, where before all the wireless traffic did not, it went straight to the Q Hub, then over the airwaves. I also noticed that my speeds on a PC to PC transfer was limited to 7-8 MBps, despite everything in the chain being at least Gigabit spec (NIC's on PC's, Powerlines, switch). I'm quite sure that is not right, and I probably need help sorting that out really first and foremost.
So, I'm in two minds at the moment. Part of me is saying, "to heck with it", and just go all in, and completely wire the house with cat 6, have a patch panel somewhere feeding everything, install faceplates throughout the house, add in extra NIC cards to my PC's to increase bandwidth, and be done with it. Probably the best option really.
Another thing I have been thinking though, is can I add a wireless AP at my server side, and have that deal with the wireless needs, and free up my gigabit network for hard-wired devices? Would there be anyway of adding it to the Sky Q network that is already there, so I don't have to swap connections on the tablets to access that? Or can I route the internet through the new wireless network instead, and then just extend that separately, disabling the Sky Q wifi (well not really, since the multi-room requires that). I feel that this may be the easiest / cheapest / quickest option.
Although I have always been drawn to running cat 6 regardless. It would be reasonably expensive as my house is quite large, and I would require several runs to each bedroom (there are 4), as well as kitchen, lounge, cinema and office. So would need a reasonable amount of work done to run everything. Plus my house is "upside down", so my internet comes in downstairs, in my office, and on this floor is 1 bedroom (smallest, probably not really requiring hard-wiring) and the cinema, whereas all the living area (lounge, kitchen etc), and other bedrooms are upstairs. I must admit, when I put it that way, it doesn't sound too upside down, but it is.
Things were fine before, where I had a direct connection from the PC (with all media files) into my Sky Q hub, then the other Q port into a switch. From here, it fed out to my other devices in my office, then into a single channel TP-Link 1200 MBPS powerline adaptor.
I then had another one of these adaptors in the bedroom, and two triple channel ones, one in the lounge, the other in the cinema.
Now though, the server has been moved to the cinema room. So all media traffic is now going through the powerlines, whether it is going via wifi, or too my TV's (albeit there is now no need for this in the cinema).
Anyway, I also have a mini Q box or whatever (for multi-room) in beside the server. It has done a decent job of boosting the wifi strength at this side of the house.
But I appear to be having some bottlenecking going on. So if my kids are each watching something on plex on their tablets, I don't appear to have the bandwidth left for me to watch something in the lounge. Probably because all traffic now has to go through this powerline network now, where before all the wireless traffic did not, it went straight to the Q Hub, then over the airwaves. I also noticed that my speeds on a PC to PC transfer was limited to 7-8 MBps, despite everything in the chain being at least Gigabit spec (NIC's on PC's, Powerlines, switch). I'm quite sure that is not right, and I probably need help sorting that out really first and foremost.
So, I'm in two minds at the moment. Part of me is saying, "to heck with it", and just go all in, and completely wire the house with cat 6, have a patch panel somewhere feeding everything, install faceplates throughout the house, add in extra NIC cards to my PC's to increase bandwidth, and be done with it. Probably the best option really.
Another thing I have been thinking though, is can I add a wireless AP at my server side, and have that deal with the wireless needs, and free up my gigabit network for hard-wired devices? Would there be anyway of adding it to the Sky Q network that is already there, so I don't have to swap connections on the tablets to access that? Or can I route the internet through the new wireless network instead, and then just extend that separately, disabling the Sky Q wifi (well not really, since the multi-room requires that). I feel that this may be the easiest / cheapest / quickest option.
Although I have always been drawn to running cat 6 regardless. It would be reasonably expensive as my house is quite large, and I would require several runs to each bedroom (there are 4), as well as kitchen, lounge, cinema and office. So would need a reasonable amount of work done to run everything. Plus my house is "upside down", so my internet comes in downstairs, in my office, and on this floor is 1 bedroom (smallest, probably not really requiring hard-wiring) and the cinema, whereas all the living area (lounge, kitchen etc), and other bedrooms are upstairs. I must admit, when I put it that way, it doesn't sound too upside down, but it is.