# Organizing a LAN party...



## wintermute0 (Oct 27, 2010)

I don't know if this should be here, and if it's not on topic then feel free to move it.

I'm trying to organize a LAN party in my area with a small group of friends, there shouldn't be more than 10 people coming, and I was wondering what I need to get it up and running, how LAN works, if it can be done on a wireless connection, what equipment I'll need, and just any tips in general, really.

I know I've played on a LAN connection with my friend, we were playing Unreal Tournament 98 (I think), and we were playing on a LAN server over the wireless connection at my house. Can this be done with more than two people? I don't really understand how it works, since on most websites explaining how to host a LAN party they generally advise the host not to do it through a wireless connection, explaining that a router and switches are a better alternative.


----------



## DannibusX (Oct 27, 2010)

You _can_ do it wirelessly, but a wired connection is preferred for latency issues.  You'll have a lot more connection consistency with a wired LAN set up.  Yes, use a switch for the computers you'll be using in the LAN, and if internet connectivity is required (BNet for SC2) connect a router to the switch.

If internet isn't required, then you don't need a router.  You can LAN over a router as well if it supports the amount of computers you wish to connect.


----------



## wintermute0 (Oct 27, 2010)

DannibusX said:


> You _can_ do it wirelessly, but a wired connection is preferred for latency issues.  You'll have a lot more connection consistency with a wired LAN set up.  Yes, use a switch for the computers you'll be using in the LAN, and if internet connectivity is required (BNet for SC2) connect a router to the switch.
> 
> If internet isn't required, then you don't need a router.  You can LAN over a router as well if it supports the amount of computers you wish to connect.



So it's just as simple as plugging network cords into a switch, and then into the participating computers? We'll probably be playing Team Fortress 2 and other such Steam powered games, so I suppose we'd need an internet connection for that, as well.

Where could I buy a decent network switch? Radio-Shack?


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Oct 27, 2010)

wintermute0 said:


> So it's just as simple as plugging network cords into a switch, and then into the participating computers? We'll probably be playing Team Fortress 2 and other such Steam powered games, so I suppose we'd need an internet connection for that, as well.
> 
> Where could I buy a decent network switch? Radio-Shack?



Yes it's just as simple as plugging cables in.

If Radio Shack sells switches they're going to be expensive.  Better luck getting them off newegg or mwave.  I got a 24-port gigabit switch with jumbo frame support for $100 off of mwave a while back. 

You mean to tell me that out of 10 people at your LAN party not a single one has a 10-port gigabit switch (even 100Mbps switch will do)?  For shame! :shadedshu


----------



## DannibusX (Oct 27, 2010)

If you want Steamworks and all your TF2 goodies (hats) you'll need the internet.  I do believe that you can set up one of the machines with a dedicated server and host it yourself, though.

Go to Newegg for the switch, buying from a retail outlet will be expensive.


----------



## wintermute0 (Oct 27, 2010)

Alright, thanks for the quick replies.

Looks like I'm about to blow some money.


----------



## hat (Oct 27, 2010)

You should make your own ethernet cables. Buying already made ethernet cables is fantastically expensive compared to making your own, and when you make your own you can customize your length. You just need the cable itself, ends (RJ45) and a clamp.







Just run a cable from a computer to the switch. All computers connected to the switch are now connected through LAN. If you need internets, you'll need to get a router, connect your modem to the router (using the WAN port on the router) and connect the router to the switch using a LAN port.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2010)

I'd definitely use a router to hand out the IPs, it just makes setting up the network and making sure everyone gets the proper settings.  It doesn't have to be an expensive router.

You can get a 16 Port Switch for $25 and a router for $19 and be up and running.  Of course if you already have a router then use that.

I would definitely run the internet connection through the router so everyone has access to it.  So if someone needs to download updates or patches they can.  I seems like every LAN part I go ti, at least one person has to end up reformatting their computer...


----------



## DannibusX (Oct 27, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I seems like every LAN part I go ti, at least one person has to end up reformatting their computer...



Off topic:

Since it's at every lan party you go to.  Is said reformatter you?


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2010)

wintermute0 said:


> I don't know if this should be here, and if it's not on topic then feel free to move it.
> 
> I'm trying to organize a LAN party in my area with a small group of friends, there shouldn't be more than 10 people coming, and I was wondering what I need to get it up and running, how LAN works, if it can be done on a wireless connection, what equipment I'll need, and just any tips in general, really.
> 
> I know I've played on a LAN connection with my friend, we were playing Unreal Tournament 98 (I think), and we were playing on a LAN server over the wireless connection at my house. Can this be done with more than two people? I don't really understand how it works, since on most websites explaining how to host a LAN party they generally advise the host not to do it through a wireless connection, explaining that a router and switches are a better alternative.




Router (or other source of DHCP) - internet to it not required
networking switch(es), enough ports for all PC's. try to use as few uplinks as possible (see below)

if you want wireless, you need to have a wireless router or wireless access point - wireless and wired people can access each other/game with each other.


as for uplinks, imagine the following.

two 5 port gigabit switches, one router with 4x ethernet ports.


giga ---> router <---- giga

one port is taken from each giga to link to the router, so everyone is connected. problem here, is that the router is likely only 100Mb - so while people on the same gigabit switch can get 1Gb speeds to each other, the 100Mb link to the router slows down the links between the two switches (to 100Mb TOTAL, not 100Mb per person)

this wont matter for gaming, but if you start transferring files (game installers, patches etc) it will really start to suck.


----------



## ktr (Oct 27, 2010)

You want a 10/100 switch with Gigabit uplink ports (for the dedicated server). Also, you will need to survey the area where you are hosting the LAN party and make sure you have enough power for the 10+ computers. General rule is 4A per computer, and if you are hosting in 1 room, chances are that room all goes to a single 20A breaker. So you might have to run extension cords from one to two other rooms to be stable.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2010)

ktr said:


> You want a 10/100 switch with Gigabit uplink ports (for the dedicated server). Also, you will need to survey the area where you are hosting the LAN party and make sure you have enough power for the 10+ computers. General rule is 4A per computer, and if you are hosting in 1 room, chances are that room all goes to a single 20A breaker. So you might have to run extension cords from one to two other rooms to be stable.



gigabit uplinks are unneccesary, they just need to get a switch big enough to fit everyone.

minus the wireless users, an 8 port switch oughta do it.


power is a good point, i forgot that. use as few extension cords and power boards as possible.


----------



## ktr (Oct 27, 2010)

Mussels said:


> gigabit uplinks are unneccesary, they just need to get a switch big enough to fit everyone.



I guess it depends. In my case, I've help host TF2 LANs and we used switches with gigabit uplinks for the dedicated server, particularly when it comes to custom maps and what not. We didn't have the internet bandwidth for everyone, just the server.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2010)

ktr said:


> I guess it depends. In my case, I've help host TF2 LANs and we used switches with gigabit uplinks for the dedicated server, particularly when it comes to custom maps and what not. We didn't have the internet bandwidth for everyone, just the server.



custom maps should fly at 10MB/s+ anyway


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2010)

DannibusX said:


> Off topic:
> 
> Since it's at every lan party you go to.  Is said reformatter you?



No.



Mussels said:


> Router (or other source of DHCP) - internet to it not required
> networking switch(es), enough ports for all PC's. try to use as few uplinks as possible (see below)
> 
> if you want wireless, you need to have a wireless router or wireless access point - wireless and wired people can access each other/game with each other.
> ...



It would be better to daisy chain the gigabit switchs in that situation.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be better to daisy chain the gigabit switchs in that situation.



yes it would, it was a purely educational example.

depending on room layout, sometimes you cant do that however (without really long cables)


----------



## phobias23 (Oct 27, 2010)

10mb is enough for a lan party wired router/switch
I have play with my mates these games with a 10mb and a 100mb router no difference in games:
 Gears of War
 UT3
 Sniper Ghost Warrior
 Split Second
 Stalker CoP
 Lost Planet 2
 Turok
 Fear 2

Dude, no difference at all!
but if your are planning on share data it is when the bandwith comes.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2010)

phobias23 said:


> 10mb is enough for a lan party wired router/switch
> I have play with my mates these games with a 10mb and a 100mb router no difference in games:
> Gears of War
> UT3
> ...



please do not confuse MB with Mb.

My translation was:

We have tested with 10Mb (100Mb) and 100MB (1Gb) networks, and games run fine!


my reply: well no shit, they work fine only on dsl, which is usually only 1-2Mb (0.10Mb/s+) so of course GAMES are fine. file transfers is where it will slow down.

try sending steam backups over 100Mb networking and see how slow that goes when doing it between 5 people.


----------



## phobias23 (Oct 27, 2010)

why so serious Mussels, i just try to make a point from my experience in lanpartys, I
never denied your words
relax dude


----------



## Mussels (Oct 27, 2010)

phobias23 said:


> why so serious Mussels, i just try to make a point from my experience in lanpartys, I
> never denied your words
> relax dude



lan parties are srs bizness yo.


----------



## aCid888* (Oct 27, 2010)

Mussels said:


> lan parties are srs bizness yo.



word.


----------



## phobias23 (Oct 27, 2010)

whatever,nevermind. I enjoy lanparties a lot, and if it is just to play games,we use a 100Mb router. Stalker CoP is awesome for it.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Oct 27, 2010)

Thanks for the ideas guys. There's the possibility of this thing going down in my garage, we'll see.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 27, 2010)

Mussels said:


> please do not confuse MB with Mb.
> 
> My translation was:
> 
> ...



I've been to professional LAN parties where 10M was used.  And the LAN parties I've put on all use a 10M network as well.  Why?  2 reasons:

1.) 10M is fast enough for playing games.  The network should be used for playing games, if you want to transfer files, use a flash drive or external hard drive.  And when I put on a LAN party I always make sure I have at least a 120GB external hard drive available to pass around if needed.
2.) 10M hubs are extremely cheap to buy used.  I bought 2 24-Port 10M hubs off ebay over a year ago for under $50, and I'm sure you can get them even cheaper today.  This makes setup cost extremely cheap for large setups compared to using Gigabit or even 100M.

I will say, compared to Gigabit, transferring files over even 100M is a real drag.  But even a CS:S backup will go through in about 6 minutes, so it isn't terrible.  If the person doesn't already have it installed, they deserve to wait. Seriously, it kills me how many people will show up to a LAN party with no LAN games installed.  Then expect everyone else to privide the images and steam backups so they can install them.


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 27, 2010)

I haven't seen a 10Mbit hub since what, 1999?
All professional LAN parties should have at least 100Mbit connections. I'll be damned if I have to transfer files over 10Mbit. Can't even find 10Mbit hardware anywhere anymore.

Smaller LANs are fine with 100Mbit, Anything 25+ (professional parties) should consider upgrading to Gigabit imho.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> I haven't seen a 10Mbit hub since what, 1999?
> All professional LAN parties should have at least 100Mbit connections. I'll be damned if I have to transfer files over 10Mbit. Can't even find 10Mbit hardware anywhere anymore.
> 
> Smaller LANs are fine with 100Mbit, Anything 25+ (professional parties) should consider upgrading to Gigabit imho.



the lans i go to run 24+ port gigabit switches with fiber uplinks to the backbone. maybe we just take it more seriously.


----------



## Polaris573 (Oct 28, 2010)

Don't do a wireless connection. With 10 people in small quarters you're going to get a lot of noise and infuriating dropped connections.  A consumer grade WAP isn't going to cut it.

Wires and 100mb switches/routers are so dirt cheap there is no excuse not to do it. Have your 10 people pay $10 each for infrastructure and food. Get a used 25 port switch off ebay for $25. Go to home depot; get a crimper for $15, a box of RJ45 heads for $10 and 200ft of cable for $20. Spend the rest on pizza and soda.  Save the infastructure for next time. Call it good.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 28, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> I haven't seen a 10Mbit hub since what, 1999?
> All professional LAN parties should have at least 100Mbit connections. I'll be damned if I have to transfer files over 10Mbit. Can't even find 10Mbit hardware anywhere anymore.
> 
> Smaller LANs are fine with 100Mbit, Anything 25+ (professional parties) should consider upgrading to Gigabit imho.



Again, the LAN is for playing games, not transfering files.  Perhaps the ones I go to just take playing games more serious, and care less about sharing as much pirated files as possible...

External hard drives and flash drives are for transferring files.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> External hard drives and flash drives are for transferring files.



i do not know a single person who does that, unless they're driving between destinations. USB is just so damned slow compared to gigabit.


----------



## ktr (Oct 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, the LAN is for playing games, not transfering files.  Perhaps the ones I go to just take playing games more serious, and care less about sharing as much pirated files as possible...



But hubs create so much unnecessary traffic, and probably induce bad lag for modern games with high tick rates, or that is my take on them.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 28, 2010)

ktr said:


> But hubs create so much unnecessary traffic, and probably induce bad lag for modern games with high tick rates, or that is my take on them.



i think there is confusion between Mb and MB that some people arent clearing up, 10MB = 100Mb, which is a switched hub whereas a 10Mb hub aint switched.


of course, a non switched hub is gunna suck balls for anything - if however he just has a badly worded way of saying '100Mb switch', then its fine for any kind of gaming.


----------



## ktr (Oct 28, 2010)

No confusion with me. 

8 bits in a byte, hub is a multiport repeater, switches uses MAC tables for packet switching, etc...etc...


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, the LAN is for playing games, not transfering files.  Perhaps the ones I go to just take playing games more serious, and care less about sharing as much pirated files as possible...
> 
> External hard drives and flash drives are for transferring files.



You are confusing file sharing with piracy. It's only piracy when you share materials that are copyrighted. It's perfectly legal to share game updates, patches, free programs and what not.

I seriously CBA to stand up, grab an external harddrive, walk around a LAN with several hundreds of people and ask whether or not someone has the program or update I want.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 28, 2010)

ktr said:


> But hubs create so much unnecessary traffic, and probably induce bad lag for modern games with high tick rates, or that is my take on them.



Not really, my last LAN party had about 30 people, and the 10Mb hubs works great for gaming.  Again, most of these games are designed to run perfectly and do run perfectly over 1.5Mb DSL connections.

The ping are slightly higher than a 100Mb network, but still way better than anything you'd get playing over an internet connection.



Mussels said:


> i think there is confusion between Mb and MB that some people arent clearing up, 10MB = 100Mb, which is a switched hub whereas a 10Mb hub aint switched.
> 
> 
> of course, a non switched hub is gunna suck balls for anything - if however he just has a badly worded way of saying '100Mb switch', then its fine for any kind of gaming.



No confusion, I'm a network engineer by trade, when I say 10M hub I mean 10Mb Hub.  Not 100Mb, not switch.

A 10Mb hub is fine for any type of gaming with under 50 people.  Once you get up beyond that point 100Mb and switchs to keep the packet collisions down becomes more important.



Thrackan said:


> You are confusing file sharing with piracy. It's only piracy when you share materials that are copyrighted. It's perfectly legal to share game updates, patches, free programs and what not.
> 
> I seriously CBA to stand up, grab an external harddrive, walk around a LAN with several hundreds of people and ask whether or not someone has the program or update I want.



Yes, but usually the large percentage of the network is used for Piracy, and not legit file transfers, and you know it.  Usually the legit file transfers are over in the first hour or so because by then everyone has the games installed that they are going to play.

It isn't that big of a deal to have one or two externals or flash drives floating around for anyone that needs patches and game updates, and it helps if the drive is filled with the most common ones at the start, and any time one is added it isn't removed.  But then again, you should come to the LAN party already patched and up to date anyway, right?  Of course I understand that there are times when a game is going to be played that you didn't think was going to be played, so you didn't install it, but using an USB external to get the patches isn't a problem.

And you still have to ask if someone has the patch or update you want if you are transferring it over the network, because  they have to share it over the network.  Yes, some people just share everything and let you pick through what you need, but that is pretty much the same as plugging in the external that is floating around and finding what you need.  I usually provide at least 3 USB Flash Drives and at least 1 USB External Hard Drive  with the most common patches on them, then are up on a table for anyone to come up and use if they need a patch.


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 28, 2010)

Dude. Simple. I go to a *LAN* party, not an *external HDD* party.
The LAN part of the LAN party needs to be fast, solid and stable.
If I was a network engineer I'd take enough pride in my job to not setup a 10Mbit network in 2010.
If I want a 10Mbit connection I'll play from home.

And hubs, damn serious? Go go gadget broadcast! And you seriously never had network problems with those? We used to have 5 people on a hub at home and we'd have broadcast issues and stability drops like mad.

You're a *network engineer* man!

Sharing is as simple as setting up a DC++ hub and letting people connect to it. Searchable and everything.

Heck, all I read is that you're anti-filesharing. Theres other ways to prevent illegal filesharing. Doing it on the hardware side is simply not the right place.


----------



## casual swift (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm jealous... A LAN party would be awesome fun. Let us know how it goes.


----------



## Disparia (Oct 28, 2010)

Back in the day we did fine with 90 people on 4 chained 100Mb switches. Of course, porno was of a lesser definition and file size then.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 28, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> Dude. Simple. I go to a *LAN* party, not an *external HDD* party.
> The LAN part of the LAN party needs to be fast, solid and stable.
> If I was a network engineer I'd take enough pride in my job to not setup a 10Mbit network in 2010.
> If I want a 10Mbit connection I'll play from home.
> ...



LAN parties are for playing games, not sharing files.  I have no problem with illegal file sharing, but it doesn't belong at a LAN party that is supposed to be for playing games.

I have a Gigabit network in my home, but when I setup for the LAN party, I use the 10Mb hubs because they work, they are stable, and they allow gaming just fine.  And more importantly they are cheap and I already have them.  Could I upgrade to Gigabit?  Sure, if I wanted to put out $300 in switches.  But what would it help?  File transfers would go faster and that is it, big deal.  It won't make the games run any better.

No, I've seriously never had network problems with using hubs.  When you restrict the network to just gaming, and people don't use it for file sharing, there is no problem.  And as you said, I'm a network engineer, and I know how to set them up.  I've never once had a single complaint of game slowness because of the network.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 28, 2010)

you dont need special equipment if you are hosting less than 25 people. just get a gigabit switch and be done with it.


----------



## freaksavior (Oct 28, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> you dont need special equipment if you are hosting less than 25 people. just get a gigabit switch and be done with it.



As everyone else said, just get a giga or 10/100 switch.

Last time I hosted a lan party, nobody had the games, I was pissed, we installed cod 4 on 4 computers through the lan. it sucked balls. 

If they don't have it, don't wait. Good luck


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 28, 2010)

freaksavior said:


> As everyone else said, just get a giga or 10/100 switch.
> 
> Last time I hosted a lan party, nobody had the games, I was pissed, we installed cod 4 on 4 computers through the lan. it sucked balls.
> 
> If they don't have it, don't wait. Good luck



Exactly this.

For all the LAN parties I've thrown, I always make it very clear that the network is not for file sharing or installing games/patches over.  It will be a 10Mb network, and will not have the bandwidth to transfer patches or entire game images over to allow people to install so everyone should have the most common games already installed when they arrive.  And everyone usually does, which makes it so much nicer because everyone isn't waiting for someone to get the game installed.  For the 1 or 2 that don't, they get to use the external hard drives and flash drives.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Exactly this.
> 
> For all the LAN parties I've thrown, I always make it very clear that the network is not for file sharing or installing games/patches over.  It will be a 10Mb network, and will not have the bandwidth to transfer patches or entire game images over to allow people to install so everyone should have the most common games already installed when they arrive.  And everyone usually does, which makes it so much nicer because everyone isn't waiting for someone to get the game installed.  For the 1 or 2 that don't, they get to use the external hard drives and flash drives.



i dont know. maybe i am a bit more tolerant but i have never been too or hosted a lan party. but it seems to make sense to let people share files and download patches and games on the network so long as QoS is setup. that way you can limit each persons bandwidth and let everyone game with no issues.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Oct 28, 2010)

Talking about lan party ...i got it for real cheap (8$) is it enough for playing Battlefield 2 or some other games in a lan party ? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/D-Link-824TP-24-Port-Hub-/230360248900?pt=COMP_EN_Hubs&hash=item35a28a7244

Thx


----------



## ktr (Oct 28, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Not really, my last LAN party had about 30 people, and the 10Mb hubs works great for gaming.  Again, most of these games are designed to run perfectly and do run perfectly over 1.5Mb DSL connections.
> 
> The ping are slightly higher than a 100Mb network, but still way better than anything you'd get playing over an internet connection.



You still don't get it. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BANDWIDTH, but how hubs work.

When I am referring to bad lag from hubs, I am talking about packet collision. Packet collision will induce bad lag (jam signal, wait period, etc). 

Heck, I have seen packet collision caused by a typical 5 port HUB connected to 5 computers (specifically the unnecessary traffic caused by Novell's IPX). 

Hubs have no logic in their packet switching. Clients and server will broadcast on all ports. 

TF2 for instance has a default tickrate of 66, and one client will receive 1,584 updates per second for a server with 24 players! 

I can't imagine all the trouble hubs will cause.


----------



## andrew123 (Nov 3, 2010)

I'd like to recommend you purchase an old Cisco switch and set the Frame forwarding method to Cut-Through as this will provide insanely good latency for your LAN party. (no frame checks, since most LAN party traffic is UDP).


----------



## andrew123 (Nov 3, 2010)

ktr said:


> You still don't get it. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BANDWIDTH, but how hubs work.
> 
> When I am referring to bad lag from hubs, I am talking about packet collision. Packet collision will induce bad lag (jam signal, wait period, etc).
> 
> ...




I second this post. Once you start using a shared ethernet bus, you start using CDMA/CD (Carrier Detect Multiple Access / Collision Detection) which _kills_ bandwidth. There used to be an unwritten rule that you'd never use more than 30% of available interfaces on a hub as performance suffers terribly after 30%.

If you get an old enterprise level switch, you can really 'fine' tune the parameters to get the lowest latency.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Nov 3, 2010)

Alright, I tested out logging into my Steam account in offline mode on different machines and playing the same game on them at the same time and it works. When you try connecting to an online server, it only lets one of them join (obviously). The question is: When trying to connect them to a locally hosted game, will it still only let a single client join?

I am/we are also going to need some help getting some Steam games set up so that they're playable through the network.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 3, 2010)

Soylent Joe said:


> Alright, I tested out logging into my Steam account in offline mode on different machines and playing the same game on them at the same time and it works. When you try connecting to an online server, it only lets one of them join (obviously). The question is: When trying to connect them to a locally hosted game, will it still only let a single client join?
> 
> I am/we are also going to need some help getting some Steam games set up so that they're playable through the network.



it wont let you MP with the same account multiple times.

many steam games dont work locally, those that do often still require you to be online to play (they just send the traffic locally)


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 3, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> i dont know. maybe i am a bit more tolerant but i have never been too or hosted a lan party. but it seems to make sense to let people share files and download patches and games on the network so long as QoS is setup. that way you can limit each persons bandwidth and let everyone game with no issues.



Really, it isn't about not letting them share files.  It is about file sharing not being the main reason behind the LAN party.  I don't use the 10M network to prevent filesharing, I use it for the reasons I listed.  It is fast enough for playing games and it is cheap.  It is a big cost already for me to put on a LAN party, even if I collect a small fee from each person, I still lose money on every LAN and putting out $300+ just to make sharing files easier on people isn't worth it for me.



ktr said:


> *You still don't get it.* IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BANDWIDTH, but how hubs work.
> 
> When I am referring to bad lag from hubs, I am talking about packet collision. Packet collision will induce bad lag (jam signal, wait period, etc).
> 
> ...



I quote myself since I don't like repeating myself:



newtekie1 said:


> A 10Mb hub is fine for any type of gaming with under 50 people. Once you get up beyond that point 100Mb and switchs to keep the packet collisions down becomes more important.



I understand the issue of packet collision just fine, obviously.  I've use this setup my LAN parties without issue and my last LAN party had about 35 people.  Were there packet collisions? Yes.  Did they cause inefficiency in the network to the point that the games lagged? Nope.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Nov 3, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it wont let you MP with the same account multiple times.
> 
> many steam games dont work locally, those that do often still require you to be online to play (they just send the traffic locally)



So, if we wanted to play L4D, there's be absolutely no way for us to play unless each player has their own account, with own purchased copy of L4D. Correct?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 3, 2010)

Soylent Joe said:


> So, if we wanted to play L4D, there's be absolutely no way for us to play unless each player has their own account, with own purchased copy of L4D. Correct?



yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Nov 3, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yeah, pretty much.



Well that's stinking lame. I guess I should have picked up the $10 L4D pack last weekend and just put it on a new account for whoever will need it.


----------



## ktr (Nov 3, 2010)

You might have to research on how to make a cracked server (I don't condone it). I am pretty sure the local server will reject players with identical Steam:ID.


----------



## andrew123 (Nov 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Really, it isn't about not letting them share files.  It is about file sharing not being the main reason behind the LAN party.  I don't use the 10M network to prevent filesharing, I use it for the reasons I listed.  It is fast enough for playing games and it is cheap.  It is a big cost already for me to put on a LAN party, even if I collect a small fee from each person, I still lose money on every LAN and putting out $300+ just to make sharing files easier on people isn't worth it for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Packet Collisions are the definition of inefficiency on an Ethernet topology. You tell me, is it better to have CDMA/CD logic and a half duplex bus and share 10Mbit / 35 computers? Horribly inefficient. You might have found the game without issue, but the fact is that since most game LAN traffic is UDP and you lose a packet from collision you've lost information, which has no benefit for LAN gaming. There really is no reason to use Hub's anymore, unless you want to sniff traffic using Wireshark between some hosts to analyze a protocol or do packet injection or extend a UTP run over 100m.

For the record, 10Mbit / 35 nodes (half duplex) is ~146 Kbit/s per node. What game where you guys playing that would support that since minimum side of a UDP header is 128 bits in a packet?? (You can only send 18kilobytes of information per node/second IF there are no jam signals and a collision doesn't occur).

So yeah, you can throw a LAN party with either a hub or a switch, one will make your party suck one will make it not suck.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Nov 3, 2010)

I would like to get  a step-by-step way to build a lan party with my automatic hub. Anyone can point me a linkj with lot of explanations? Like the ip configuration, how its working, what setup i need in each computers etc  thx


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 3, 2010)

andrew123 said:


> Packet Collisions are the definition of inefficiency on an Ethernet topology. You tell me, is it better to have CDMA/CD logic and a half duplex bus and share 10Mbit / 35 computers? Horribly inefficient. You might have found the game without issue, but the fact is that since most game LAN traffic is UDP and you lose a packet from collision you've lost information, which has no benefit for LAN gaming. There really is no reason to use Hub's anymore, unless you want to sniff traffic using Wireshark between some hosts to analyze a protocol or do packet injection or extend a UTP run over 100m.
> 
> For the record, 10Mbit / 35 nodes (half duplex) is ~146 Kbit/s per node. What game where you guys playing that would support that since minimum side of a UDP header is 128 bits in a packet?? (You can only send 18kilobytes of information per node/second IF there are no jam signals and a collision doesn't occur).
> 
> So yeah, you can throw a LAN party with either a hub or a switch, one will make your party suck one will make it not suck.



When did I say it was better?  I said it was sufficient for gaming up to about 50 people, after that the collisions get bad to the point where lag starts to occure.  Read my posts.


----------



## wintermute0 (Nov 3, 2010)

ktr said:


> You might have to research on how to make a cracked server (I don't condone it). I am pretty sure the local server will reject players with identical Steam:ID.



I'm totally not checking into that.


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 3, 2010)

Soylent Joe said:


> So, if we wanted to play L4D, there's be absolutely no way for us to play unless each player has their own account, with own purchased copy of L4D. Correct?



well the is a mod to get multiplayer on one PC, so really 1 pc between 2 if it is feasible to bother settings all the PCs up with the mod


----------



## andrew123 (Nov 4, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> When did I say it was better?  I said it was sufficient for gaming up to about 50 people, after that the collisions get bad to the point where lag starts to occure.  Read my posts.



Firstly, I'm posting this shaking my head.

I read your posts and for the most part I agree with it except for the I ran 35 to 50 PC's off a hub. . Hubs are crap compared to a switch, there is just no reason to use a hub today, especially in a post about 'how to organize a lan party'.. most places don't even sell hubs, and 8 port switch is $30 bucks. Save your hubs for repeating and traffic sniffing purposes. Secondly, I did re-read your post, and you said you're a network engineer by trade? You throw lots of LAN party's but aren't interested in trying to provide the best possible experience by providing a switched low latency environments for players?

Another nice thing about (some) switches is you can use VLAN's to allow different groups of people to play different games on the same switch at the same time without broadcast traffic interfering with other peoples games.

I don't play many LAN games, but I do work with low latency networks (for high performance computing), VoIP and Video Conferencing... The guy asked a valid question and you're trying to troll us with this hub nonsense and I guess I got troll-baited cuz here I am posting this when as a 'Network Engineer by Trade' you're telling a guy 'you can run 50 PC's off a hub'... well.. with today's games it's not really practical.. you know how people are killed in FPS's from being a fraction of a second too late .. it's because of latency. 

If you're getting collisions you've stonewalled the whole 35 to 50 PC network for a fraction of a second. That's just not tolerable even a little bit. This is great if you're playing Oregon Trail but not for one of todays games.

Why am I even responding to this?!

For the original poster: firstly, hubs are hard to find (go to best buy and ask for a hub, he'll tell you he hasn't seen one there in centuries), secondly you don't have to 'break' the bank for a LAN party, for under $80 bucks you can get set up with something that will support 16 to 24 users comfortably).



Thrackan said:


> Dude. Simple. I go to a *LAN* party, not an *external HDD* party.
> The LAN part of the LAN party needs to be fast, solid and stable.
> If I was a network engineer I'd take enough pride in my job to not setup a 10Mbit network in 2010.
> If I want a 10Mbit connection I'll play from home.
> ...




this


----------



## Disparia (Nov 4, 2010)

Back in the day a group of friends and I would LAN every two weeks, alternating between ourselves (8-12 people) and a larger LAN that was held monthly (80-90 people). Like a knife at a gun fight, you don't want to be the group on a hub at a LAN party 

That may not be a common situation for all, but around here it's been my experience that groups join up, or one's group simply outgrows their 8p or 16p switch. Instead of moving up to a larger switch, just chain another. Latency stays low, filesharing isn't a problem, etc.

In short, a hub probably works in the situation outlined, but is also limited to it as well. A switch with it's longevity and performance is the more practical choice.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 4, 2010)

andrew123 said:


> I read your posts and for the most part I agree with it except for the I ran 35 to 50 PC's off a hub. .



Ok, you can disagree with me, but I've done it sucessfully and you by your own admittion don't even play LAN games...



andrew123 said:


> Hubs are crap compared to a switch



No one is arguing that.  A Celeron is crap compared to a Core i7, but guess what I and alot of others still use to play games.



andrew123 said:


> there is just no reason to use a hub today, especially in a post about 'how to organize a lan party



There are a few reasons, as I mentioned before.



andrew123 said:


> .. most places don't even sell hubs, and 8 port switch is $30 bucks



Awesome, that $30 8-port hub will totally eliminate the need for my two 24-port hubs.  I'm so glad that 35 people can play on an 8 port switch, that makes the cost so much easier.

Oh yeah, I already talked about this, but you didn't read it.  Upgrading to 24 port 100M switches would be about $120, and upgrading to 1000M would be about $300.  When I start actually making a profit off the LAN parties I throw, I'll get right on those upgrades.



andrew123 said:


> Secondly, I did re-read your post, and you said you're a network engineer by trade? You throw lots of LAN party's but aren't interested in trying to provide the best possible experience by providing a switched low latency environments for players?



To the players it doesn't matter.  As long as the games run lag free, and they do, no one at my LAN parties care.



andrew123 said:


> Another nice thing about (some) switches is you can use VLAN's to allow different groups of people to play different games on the same switch at the same time without broadcast traffic interfering with other peoples games.



Yeah, and now you are talking about rather expensive equipment.  Maybe you don't get that I don't make any money off these things...  But I guess some of us don't have to worry about money...



andrew123 said:


> I don't play many LAN games, but I do work with low latency networks (for high performance computing), VoIP and Video Conferencing...



Sooo...your experience on the topic is 0...I'll keep that in mind.



andrew123 said:


> The guy asked a valid question and you're trying to troll us with this hub nonsense



Some interesting things to note here, if you actually read the post I and others have made.

1.) I recommended he use 16-Port 100M switch.  Didn't you start off by saying you read my posts?  How did you miss that glaringly obvious one?  It was the first post I made in the thread afterall...:shadedshu

2.) I didn't bring up the 10M Hub issue, someone else did.  Again, did you read the thread?  So I'm not trolling about it.  I simply backed him up with my experience in the matter.  People want to argue about it, that isn't my fault.  I know what I've done and I know what works and what networks are capable of.





andrew123 said:


> and I guess I got troll-baited cuz here I am posting this when as a 'Network Engineer by Trade' you're telling a guy 'you can run 50 PC's off a hub'... well.. with today's games it's not really practical.. you know how people are killed in FPS's from being a fraction of a second too late .. it's because of latency.



If you believe that the latency and pings on a 10M Hub based network with 35-50 players is worse than a they are over an internet connection, then you obviously have never actually used that setup or played a lot of LAN/Online games(oh wait, you already said that).

Are the ping higher on a 10M Hub network than on a 100M switch?  Yes, I already said that.  Are they bad to the point that it causes lag in the game or makes the game unplayable? No, again I've already said this too.  Am I recommending a 10M setup?  No, I already said this also.  I'm simply saying it can work.




andrew123 said:


> If you're getting collisions you've stonewalled the whole 35 to 50 PC network for a fraction of a second. That's just not tolerable even a little bit. This is great if you're playing Oregon Trail but not for one of todays games.



Again, I've used the setup and it works just fine.  Read above.



andrew123 said:


> Why am I even responding to this?!



I think mainly because you either didn't read others posts, or didn't understand them.  You seem to have the idea that I'm recommending 10M Hubs, when I specifically recommended a 100M Switch in my first post.  I never once told the OP to go out and get 10M Hubs.  I did say they would work though.



andrew123 said:


> For the original poster: firstly, hubs are hard to find (go to best buy and ask for a hub, he'll tell you he hasn't seen one there in centuries), secondly you don't have to 'break' the bank for a LAN party, for under $80 bucks you can get set up with something that will support 16 to 24 users comfortably).



Isn't that what I said in my first post.  You would know that if you read it.  You read it right?


----------



## andrew123 (Nov 5, 2010)

This is the post I had issue with: 




> I've been to professional LAN parties where 10M was used. And the LAN parties I've put on all use a 10M network as well. Why? 2 reasons:
> 
> 1.) 10M is fast enough for playing games. The network should be used for playing games, if you want to transfer files, use a flash drive or external hard drive. And when I put on a LAN party I always make sure I have at least a 120GB external hard drive available to pass around if needed.



So if at least 10 people needed a patch what would you do? take the hard drive to 10 different computers or maybe freeze the gaming action so that people could use the network to apply the patches? 3 flash cards and (at least one) external hard-disk are about $70.00 of unneeded hardware that could've gone into the purchase of a network device.



> 2.) 10M hubs are extremely cheap to buy used. I bought 2 24-Port 10M hubs off ebay over a year ago for under $50, and I'm sure you can get them even cheaper today. This makes setup cost extremely cheap for large setups compared to using Gigabit or even 100M.



The poster said 'shouldn't be more than 10 people' so your first post, while making sense is totally countered by this post. Why would you recommend switches, then tell someone to purchase hubs for larger setups as being compared to 100M.. it's a drop in the bucket? Used 10/100meg 24 port switches are about $40 to $50.00 per switch. Is your idea of extremely cheap by a margin of $40.00 (1 hub, 2 external hard drives, flash cards is most likely going to cost more than $100.00, which is the price for 2x 24 port 10/100 switches).



> I will say, compared to Gigabit, transferring files over even 100M is a real drag. But even a CS:S backup will go through in about 6 minutes, so it isn't terrible. If the person doesn't already have it installed, they deserve to wait. Seriously, it kills me how many people will show up to a LAN party with no LAN games installed. Then expect everyone else to privide the images and steam backups so they can install them.



So it kills you that someone my have to run a patch over a network, or install a game. But you're totally ok with handing out the 1 hard drive amongst the players so they can all patch up the the latest version or share a map pack? Because 'using the network should be only for games?'

Like, I understand a 'hub will do in a pinch' but it sounded like you 'recommended it as a smart thrifty alternative' (in this post) when in reality switches (may) work out to being only a bit more expensive and are miles above for performance. 

And lastly.. sorry If I seem like I'm being douchebag about this; I wanted to actual participate constructively, but this is the internet.

** edit: For the record, I said I don't play MANY LAN games, I do play them when I want to, however I'm usually working in a huge datacenter, surrounded by clusters of network gear and spend the other half of my day debating with 'network engineers' who would probably run Content Delivery Networks on a 24 port hub **


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 5, 2010)

andrew123 said:


> So if at least 10 people needed a patch what would you do? take the hard drive to 10 different computers or maybe freeze the gaming action so that people could use the network to apply the patches? 3 flash cards and (at least one) external hard-disk are about $70.00 of unneeded hardware that could've gone into the purchase of a network device.


 
You've obviously never been to a LAN party, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it to you.  With large LAN parties there are often huge breaks in the gaming.  Whenever you switch a game there is always someone that doesn't even have it installed.  I've found that the difference in time wasted between using a few hard drives and flash drives to pass the necessary files around and using file sharing over a 100M network to be minimal.  In fact the breaks at my LAN parties are usually shorter because everyone knows before it starts to have all the games and patches they need installed before they even arrive, or else they have to wait for the external or flash drives.  I've never been to a LAN party that used 1000M, so I can't compare the time wasted there, though I'm sure it would be less.

It isn't really uneeded hardware when you already have it.  I've already got the external hard drive laying around, it was purchased for other purposes and is just repurposed during the LAN party.  The same goes for my Flash Drives.  I don't purchase them for the LAN party and only use them for the LAN party like the switches would be.  The switches would be expensense that have one use and one use only.



andrew123 said:


> The poster said 'shouldn't be more than 10 people' so your first post, while making sense is totally countered by this post. Why would you recommend switches, then tell someone to purchase hubs for larger setups as being compared to 100M.. it's a drop in the bucket? Used 10/100meg 24 port switches are about $40 to $50.00 per switch. Is your idea of extremely cheap by a margin of $40.00 (1 hub, 2 external hard drives, flash cards is most likely going to cost more than $100.00, which is the price for 2x 24 port 10/100 switches).



Again, where did tell anyone to purchase hubs?  I didn't.  Why are you trying to put words into my mouth?  Just because someone says 10M hubs work and are used because XYZ doesn't mean they are saying go buy 10M hubs.  Get over that, not once did I recommend or even suggest the OP or anyone buy 10M hubs.  

And see above for why your argument on price doesn't work.  Ignoring your idea of cost for the HD and Flash Drive, because there is no direct cost for those as I explained, the two 24 Port hubs cost me $48 shipped 2 years ago(I went and looked it up I bought them Oct 08, doesn't seem like its been that long).  At the time of purchasing them I priced out 24-port 100M switches at the same time.  At the time to go 100M would have cost over $200.  So my idea of cheap is over a $150 savings.



andrew123 said:


> So it kills you that someone my have to run a patch over a network, or install a game. But you're totally ok with handing out the 1 hard drive amongst the players so they can all patch up the the latest version or share a map pack? Because 'using the network should be only for games?'



It doesn't kill me, it just annoys me slightly.  And as I said, once people are used to it, they come prepared(that is what really annoys me), so the pauses in gaming are shorter than waiting for 30 people to pull the patch and game install from one or two people sharing over a 100M network.



andrew123 said:


> Like, I understand a 'hub will do in a pinch' but it sounded like you 'recommended it as a smart thrifty alternative' (in this post) when in reality switches (may) work out to being only a bit more expensive and are miles above for performance.



Again, I didn't recommend anything as a thrift alternative, I simply explained why they are used sometimes.  Learn to read without putting words in peoples mouths.



andrew123 said:


> And lastly.. sorry If I seem like I'm being douchebag about this; I wanted to actual participate constructively, but this is the internet.



You'd seem like less of a douchbag if you learned to read and didn't put words in peoples mouths simply so that you can argue with them over things they didn't say.

You can continue to argue if you want, but if you go on again about how I'm recommending or suggesting anyone buy 10M and how you have such a huge problem with that, then I'll just ignore you because you obviously are just trying to put words in people mouths so that you can troll the forums for arguments.



andrew123 said:


> ** edit: For the record, I said I don't play MANY LAN games, I do play them when I want to, however I'm usually working in a huge datacenter, surrounded by clusters of network gear and spend the other half of my day debating with 'network engineers' who would probably run Content Delivery Networks on a 24 port hub **



Again, so your experience is still 0 on _this_ topic.  I would dream of running my datacenters on anything less than 1000M, and 10000M Fiber like we just installed in the primary datacenter we support.  But of course we make huge profit off those, we don't lose money like I do on LAN parties.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 6, 2010)

LAN Parties are a total LOVE/HATE for me. I love playing and hosting them. I HATE setting them up, especially if I am the "go to guy".

Pretty much everything newtekie1 said is true and having hosted many, many lan parties myself it  seems most of the time is wasted on getting everyone on the same patch/map. You pretty much have to be a dick about it or people will expect you to do everything for them. Now when I host; if you do not come prepared, you do not get to play, until we take a break. AND I will demand you pay for pizza and beer if I have to setup everything for your noob A55.


----------



## Delta6326 (Nov 6, 2010)

Simple that should allow any game and file share


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 6, 2010)

Delta6326 said:


> Simple that should allow any game and file share



And cost effective to boot!


----------



## Delta6326 (Nov 6, 2010)

But really just get 2 of the first or one of the second one they will work just fine


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 6, 2010)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> And cost effective to boot!


only 32K? 

I paid 42K each for two


----------

