/g/,
How much signal does a 50 ft. ethernet cable degrade because of its length?
Every 5 feet you lose 35% internet capacity
>>53716864
Depends on the category
>>53716882
This is false
I'm using a 100ft cat 6 cable right now
>>53716864
not enough to give a fuck about
>how the hell do corporate LANs work anyway
>>53716882
No you don't. 35% of maximum performance every 5 feet is just plain bullshit
>>53716864
In theory, every 100 meters sees a loss of .03 percent.
>>53716901
cat6
>>53716864
I'm tired of Wifi shit issues. I want to run an ethernet cable from my router to my PC. A distance of approximately 30ft. I'd need a 50ft. cable.
If you pull a cat5 cable over the entire city length you'd at most loose 20%
>>53716930
>>53716947
You're fine don't worry about it
I don't even think they sell cables long enough for you to experience a problem
>>53716947
Then buy one and crimp it yourself
>>53716966
depends on whether the wire is straight or not,
it is probably hard for the electricity to push through if there are turns in the wire and stuff
>>53716864
>ethernet
#DEFINE
D
E
F
I
N
E
How fast do you think data passes through copper you stupid shit?
the spec usually states 100 metres before repeaters, which is around 330 feet
>>53717053
probably at the speed of light i am assuming
>>53717207
Speed of light is a myth, like unicorns
>>53716882
Considering the max length is 328ft/100m, this isn't true no matter what Category you're talking aout
>>53717207
>Particle with of light
> every copper cable increases it's weight into infinity as sin as you turn it on
You sure know how to physics.
15% error absorbency
>>53716947
This is literally a non issue, they run longer cables in office buildings on internet connections orders of magnitude faster than yours
>>53716864
Just buy 50 50ft cables,and soldier them together
>>53717925
wat
>>53716864
what is it? cat 5? cat 6?
What's the max length that allows for Gigabit?
>>53718191
depends on if it is solid or stranded copper
>>53718191
In theory 100m with CAT 6 and above Cables
>>53716901
>>53716905
>>53717671
holy fuck, can you retards not into facetiousness?
> lose 35% internet capacity
shaking my head, mi familia.
>>53716882
>>53716901
>>53716905
>>53717671
>>53720147
What >>53716882 said is mostly true, but what he didn't mention was that it compounds. After the first five feet you retain 75% of your speed. After the next five feet, it shrinks down to another 75% of the previous iteration, ad nauseum. You won't ever truly hit zero, but the speeds will be unusable.
>>53716864
>much signal does a 50 ft. ethernet cable degrade because of its length?
if you're using undamaged cat-5 or better at 1 gigabit (and not doing things like bundling dozens of ethernet cables together in long stretches), even a 100 foot cable might only have at most a handful of corruption-induced dropped packets per month while saturated 24/7.
most ethernet systems are designed to have bit error rates in the 1/10 billionths or lower for their max-length runs, which 50 ft. comes nothing close to for 1GbE on Cat5.
>>53717925
Do your cables move when transfering data? Mine sure do.
I ran one through my attic and after six years the signal stopped. Must be a protection problem since I did not run it through a proper tube. Didn't know cat6 Ethernet cords were so sensitive.
>>53716864
this is obviously already a troll thread, but as a consumer you shouldn't worry whatsoever about signal strength in a cat5/5a/6 ethernet cable at 100Mb/1Gb speeds in anything under 100 feet.
As long as the wiring isn't damaged, the jacket isn't cracked or split to let in moisture, and you don't do stupid shit like coiling the cable around your central power main, you're gonna be fine.
> meanwhile, my parents have 2.4GHz cordless landline phones that completely black out their 802.11n or whatever WiFi in the entire house when somebody is on the line, to the annoyance of pretty much any guest they have.
Is g switching to cat 7?
>>53716864
Depends on the category. 100 meters is the point of degradation.
>>53720499
check for damage from invading squirrels.
temperature/humidity fluctuations alone shouldn't be enough to compromise the jackets in that length of time if they're not exposed to UV light or other corrosive/embrittling chemicals.
>>53720578
nigger, fuck shielded twisted pair.
Even Cat6 is drastically a bigger pain in the ass to crimp/punchdown thanks to that goddamn little plastic X divider.
My next NAS is gonna have SFP+ ports, and I'm going prefab twinax cables for short runs and prefab LC multimode fiber for longer runs.
Next time I ever wire a house, I'm gonna run an assload of multimode and singlemode fiber and probably just initially terminate the former.
>>53718191
a hundred fucking metres as is said elsewhere in the thread before you need to use signal repeaters - you may be able to run FAR longer runs without having repeaters but you'll run into issues like severe packet loss and maybe crosstalk, not decreased bandwidth
cat5e is cheap and is rated for gigabit at 100metres, don't cheap out and buy unshielded cca and you'll likely have zero issues
>>53720499
>I ran one through my attic and after six years the signal stopped
physical damage
>Didn't know cat6 Ethernet cords were so sensitive.
proper copper twisted pair cables are pretty resistant to interference, for longer runs (50-100~ metres) it's recommended to get shielded cables purely because the length introduces so much opportunity for interference in most scenarios, even the cheap screen shielding is sufficient
if you're not buying cables rated to high physical abuse, or not running it through a conduit, or otherwise bending the cable at sharp corners, you're potentially going to get significantly less performance out of it
it boils down to:
>I want high frequency high bandwidth cables with minimal electromagnetic or physical shielding in cheap(i.e., minimal copper) cables over long distances
>cat6
>six years ago
yeah, you likely didn't have cat6 cable six years ago
>>53720578
>Is g switching to cat 7?
shielded cat6a is still ridiculously expensive compared to cat5e and I'm quite content with my single cat6a run that I did recently - cat7 would be a pipe dream for me
>>53720717
>Twinax
Literally why.
>>53720835
Because 10GBASE-T ports each suck down like 4-5 Watts because Gallager/LDPC decoders are complex as fuck, and prefab twinax is cheaper than two transceivers and a short prefab optic cable.
>>53720964
Ah. I'm too retarded to understand that right now.
>>53716864
I use 200 ft cables with no issues, you're fine, it's not a copper connection
>>53721029
the basic message is that 10Gb ethernet can be made to barely work over Cat6 cables/RJ45 jacks/8P8C plugs, but it takes a power-thirsty chip on every receiver to successfully reconstruct data from the error correcting codes sent by the transmitter.
Low density parity-check codes are basically equivalent to the Turbo Codes used to send and reconstruct signals from deep space probes, where you need to minimize transmitter power/bandwidth wastage but have basically unconstrained computation capacity to rebuild signals at the receiving side.
twinax is basically just pairs of differential signal wires sharing an outer shielding, which costs more etc. but carries signals much more reliably than unshielded twisted pair Cat5/6, so it can use drastically simpler signal coding/decoding.
>>53721203
Well there's my cabling lesson for the day.
cat5 you'll probably lose 4-5mbps every 50 feet, not a big deal
cat6 you wont shit until a few hundred feet out which shouldnt be an issue for your average home computer
