Local server access through WiFi

[logistopath]

This is a query for the organization I work for. We are implementing a new hospital management software hosted on our local server, which is in a separate building about a 100m away. Now this software should be accessible to the users in our building, over WiFi.
As of now, I am thinking of something like this: the local server will be connected to our building through Cat 5 or Cat 6 cable. This will branch to all parts of the 5 floors. We will buy about 10 routers for each floor (or more, depending on the area of coverage), and connect to the ethernet cable. So theoretically, I will be connecting to the router's wifi, which will be connected to the local server via ethernet cables. Cabling within the building is already in place. We just need to connect it to the local server that is 100m away, and then connect the terminals to routers.
Will this work? Any suggestions to improve the same?
We do not want to use internet, as we do not want confidential patient data to be accessible over the web. So I need a way to access the local server without using internet.
Thank you.

 

[SDabas]

Hi Logistopath,

As long as your all machines are connected in network, you can access your hosted server.
All you need is correct routing and correct configuration of hosted server.

Thanks

 

[superczar]

This is a query for the organization I work for. We are implementing a new hospital management software hosted on our local server, which is in a separate building about a 100m away. Now this software should be accessible to the users in our building, over WiFi.
As of now, I am thinking of something like this: the local server will be connected to our building through Cat 5 or Cat 6 cable. This will branch to all parts of the 5 floors. We will buy about 10 routers for each floor (or more, depending on the area of coverage), and connect to the ethernet cable. So theoretically, I will be connecting to the router's wifi, which will be connected to the local server via ethernet cables. Cabling within the building is already in place. We just need to connect it to the local server that is 100m away, and then connect the terminals to routers.
Will this work? Any suggestions to improve the same?
We do not want to use internet, as we do not want confidential patient data to be accessible over the web. So I need a way to access the local server without using internet.
Thank you.

The network topology is not an issue.
You have a different problem though.. If building is 100m away, your cable length will go well above that.

Max lengths I have used at home are 50m.
Copper Ethernet is rated for max 100m so you are pushing it.
It may or may not work as expected unless you can put a switch in between.

At a minimum, use really good grade cable

 

[nRiTeCh]

@vivek.krishnan @cisco_tech

 

[lockhrt999]

You usually need only one router in this whole networking. You may keep it in the server building or in the hospital building, that's up to you. It shall be used for allocating IP address to connected nodes. Generally speaking, it'll only connect your server to your ethernet switch.

And then, for every floor, you may simply use wifi repeaters. Even if you choose to use router on every floor, you'll still have to bridge them (so that disables their routing functionality) and that's going to add more to maintenance. Anyway, when using wifi repeaters you may use different names for each wifi like: hospital_floor1, hospital_floor2.

In case, if you expect staff to use handheld devices like phone and tablet to connect to the wifi then forget the repeaters. You got no option but to use the mesh repeaters.

I think you'll be fine with CAT6 cable for ~100 meters of distance. I'd suggest laying two cables in place of one, reserving one of them for the future. So if something happens to the first cable, you don't want to dug up some 100 meters.
You'll obviously need to forward the port your application using on the server (Not on the router).

 

[logistopath]

Max lengths I have used at home are 50m.
Copper Ethernet is rated for max 100m so you are pushing it.

Thank you. This is what is worrying me the most.

if you expect staff to use handheld devices like phone and tablet to connect to the wifi then forget the repeaters. You got no option but to use the mesh repeaters.

Tablets and laptops will be used. I hadn't thought about mesh wifi. It should be better than multiple routers, I guess.

All of this is pretty much foreign to me. We'll be taking the help of IT technicians, but I want to be able to understand their recommendations. Don't want to blindly accept their suggestions. Hence the query.

 

[lockhrt999]

Tablets and laptops will be used. I hadn't thought about mesh wifi. It should be better than multiple routers, I guess.

In that case, you have to go with enterprise level mesh wifi routers. These are typically found installed at the airport and big malls. They usually come with router, switch and mesh points as a package. You are easily spending upwords a few lacs in just mesh router etc. So better hire a network engineer. Most likely cisco etc who provide enterprise solution will also provide their engineer.

But in general you could be looking at this topography.

 

[rdst_1]

If you would be hiring a networking engineer, common sense dictates that he/she not be affiliated to or getting commissions from the hardware seller. Basically a third-party person is needed so that you don't end up buying unnecessary hardware. I have laid 50m of cable for my small setup at my farm connecting 2 parts but 100m is the limit, so as others have suggested, if there is any building or point available mid-way, it would help to install a switch in between.

 

[cisco_tech]

Yes as pointed by others signal repetition is required in between otherwise you may face connectivity issue.

Another solution is ethernet over coax. Coax will be good option if you are planning to run cable overhead. It will be sturdy compare to EThernet. Coax to Ethernet converter are available in market 2500-3000.

Also if the line of sight is clear between both the building then you may go for point to point wireless solution as well.

 

[gwrench2000]

You will face poor performance using ethernet runs approaching or exceeding 100m. Money no bar, the best way (highest performance) to tackle this problem is to use a combo smart-switch with optic fibre sfp port in each building with a fiber-optic link between each building. You can use this or a switch similar to this https://ltonlinestore.com/D-Link-DGS-1210-28-24-Port-Smart-Switches-p71935570. You may use CAT6 for (internal) runs inside each building.

Further the connections will tree from this main-top-level combo switch to a discrete managed switch for **each floor*. You may wire the same floor to the top level switch itself. This will reduce the amount of wiring required compared to connectinag all points to a single central switch in each building.

Wifi mesh can get effected by electronic inteference and is most suitable for guest access, not corporate and essential machines (always required) which should be connected with wire for most dependability.

Using only managed switches trough-out your network helps to isolate private/confendential machines in their own VLAN as well as possiblity of having pure guest access for customers (who wont be able to access the corporate network)

Also recommend you select proper access points with wifi and compulsory with PoE arrangement so they can be driven from the network rack itself and additional power wiring is **not** required.. Price no bar, use Ubiquity contoller and wifi and for a cheaper setup use TP-Link Omada controller and EAP.

Use proper sheet metal wall mount rack to enclose equipments in each building, along with proper patch panel and wall i/o.