I forgot to mention this on your other video, but I experience dramatically different pakket drop numbers when I run iperf3 in reverse mode (the -R flag). Could be more of an iperf3 thing than a cable thing, because 20% pakket drop rate without a speed decrease doesn't make sense
The common factor to each of these cables is the plug. The performance of these plugs is critical to the overall performance of link. I am starting to wonder if these cables are using plugs that meet the requirements of the plugs laid down in the standards The utp cables (cat5e and cat6) control their crosstalk by the twist rate in the pairs , whereas the the shielded cables (cat 6a/7/8) use individually shielded pairs with an overall shield that varies from a single overall foil up to an overall foil and an overall braid. The overall shielding is improved to improve alien crosstalk and reduce electromagnetic interference or noise from external sources. Each of the cables start with the thinnest wire gauge of 24awg on the 5a cable up to 22gauge wire used on the 1:47 cat8 cables. The larger gauge of wire improves the attenuation of the signal
I'm not sure, I have posted the links to the cables if you want to look more into it. I just bought cables that had really good ratings on Amazon. I didn't want to get a spool either, just wanted to get something premade from the factory that I could just test.
@ I agree it is an option. But the vast majority of the 6a cables sold through the web have individual foil shielded pairs. This makes a Massive difference to the near and far end crosstalk of the cable and according massively effects the ACR (attenuation to crosstalk ratio) of the cable.
@@peternjulia they have to be marked s/ftp (shield+foil), s/utp (shield), u/ftp (foil). If no mark is advertised it is always going to be u/utp (unshielded) as that is simply cheaper. The cable he has in the video is unmarked which means it is 99% u/utp. You can also tell from the connector, which is plastic and therefore not the shielded type. As to the massive difference, that difference is mostly that shielded cables fail to work correctly if you do not ground them correctly. He also demonstrated that in a previous video, where his shielded 90 meter cat 7 and cat 8 cables failed to do 10G while his unshielded cat 6a did just fine. For that reason you should never get a shielded cable unless you know how to ground them.
Do you have an additional router so you can place the antennas in the middle of the coiled cable and repeat the test? Or a 100w classic light bulb, a smartphone with Bluetooth and a switched on mouse would be enough. A kitchen mixer would probably ruin all the results if it was switched on.
Yep. 100W bulb is a "clean" load. It won't do much. A switch mode PSU is much better. Or even a motor running via an inverter. Trust me that will kill the 5e link almost completely. Source : I'm a (test) automation engineer - things like that happen. CAT5e can work - but isn't guaranteed to do so. And trust me the few bucks saved isn't worth the massive trouble and hours wasted debugging random network problems
@TheRailroad99 I didn't mention powering a 100w bulb with pure electricity. But you're right that a transformer winding would cause more interference when reducing or amplifying the voltage.
Since you are getting the same packet loss numbers for all cables at each speed, it is time to start looking at other areas of the network as the point of the problem. Take the switch out of the equation first and just go direct between the PCs. If you still have problems, replace the NIC in the PC since that is easiest, and if it still has the same numbers then replace the MacMini. At this point I dont think you are really testing the cables performance since they are all identical, but rather the performance of the weakest link in your network, probably the MacMini since some of the older gens were known to have faulty Ethernet connections so it stands that the newer one may have a similar issue.
Not a bad idea but I'm trying to keep it as realistic as possible, people don't typically wire one computer to another. I'm trying to test them on a local network. Maybe it will improve if I go direct or maybe one of the cards is bad but I'm trying to keep it as realistic as possible. Granted maybe I should introduce some interference.
You will find that iperf can show packet loss even when testing on the localhost interface. This is because the kernel may drop some packets when it can't keep up. The cables are not dropping a single packet in the tests he is doing.
A query regarding your methodology: As I understand it you are connecting Computer A to a switch and Computer B to the same switch, and swapping out the cable between B and the switch. Should you not be swapping out Both cables (like to like) to have a valid test? Particularly at the cat 7 and 8 speeds? Or did I miss something here?
You're correct, the other cable is a short Cat7 cable but since it's going through a switch I was only changing one side. When I performed other tests on the other videos getting to 300ft, only the Cat6A was able to achieve the almost 10Gbps speeds, the rest were unable. So I'm just switching one side as the weakest link.
@ OK but to be a proper test should not Both sides have the same able? Otherwise you may be constrained by the common cable as you are measuring transfers to computer A .
@@landpet Ah, an unfortunate typo, would not understand that either! Of course I meant "plugs" but now I see that you have cables with factory plugs, so the question is irrelevant.
Interesting experiments, from my experience 1GbE will run fine over anything at these distances - I have very subpar wiring in my house (multiple cat5e cables soldered together, insulation gone in some places to get it under doors etc... not my finest work :D) and it has no problems at all. It originally started as 100Mbit network so I really didn't care back then.
Perhaps some comparison between flexible (stranded) and solid copper wire? You can push for much longer lengths by leaving the cable in the box and out a keystone jack or rj45 plug on each end ;-)
I've ran the 300ft cables with a similar test to this one. The results were different for the 300ft version, well that video was using openspeedtest server, no packet loss test. th-cam.com/video/3CR0_zPWKpI/w-d-xo.html
Now add common interference. Say a 110V/230V in parallel like it's typical in buildings. Now run a pulsed load through it. For example a 500W PC PSU. You will be surprised to see why we have developed shielding in the first place. In my parents home I reused CAt3 ISDN cabling in the wall to run gigabit. Works without packet loss most of the time. But that's the point of it - this was a risk, and not professional. CAT5e CAN do 10G - but it isn't guaranteed to do so in noisy home or even industrial environments. CAT7/8 is.
The results are sooooo depressing. I just bought CAT8 to replace my existing house that has CAT5e. Nothing negative about your video, i was hoping CAT8 out shine all the other cables. Dang it.
Cat8 is designed to handle 40Gbps, so it is more future proof than this once the hardware is ready. I was in the same boat, I didn't realize cat5e was so fast.
I don't understand why you compare 10, 4, 3, 2 and 1G when most devices are either 10, 5, 2.5 or 1G, would be more interesting to see comparisons to actual hardware.
You cannot test cable this way. Cable problem usually means random errors, they would be seen on both TCP and UDP tests. Cable does not care about the packet type. With 25% of packet loss, the TCP speed should be horrible, i doubt it could reach 1G even. In normal situation same would go for a switch. If it is not some "special" packet that switch has "look into/snooping" enabled or some weird optimization for packet types then maybe, but very doubtful. Most probable cause is that one of the computer has some performance issue with that type traffic. Check the CPU utilization, try same test with parallel execution. Run multiple instances of iperf on different ports with lower speed, usually every instance will get its own CPU core.
not a bad idea but I don't have all the wifi categories of devices, maybe I can make a shorter list with wifi but it would really be using a mix of different devices, so it wouldn't be a clean comparison like this one.
If you connect two computers directly with a cable the shilding is not grounded or earthed. For that your cable must be assembled on a jack for patch frames.The frame has to be connected to the potential equalisation of the house or building. The grounding shoud be cabled with 6 mm² . Only then the shielding can work properly.
this test is incomplete. conclusions are misleading. shielding matters (FTP STP UDP), length matters, interference matters. those result only hold true at short distance.
I forgot to mention this on your other video, but I experience dramatically different pakket drop numbers when I run iperf3 in reverse mode (the -R flag). Could be more of an iperf3 thing than a cable thing, because 20% pakket drop rate without a speed decrease doesn't make sense
I think it did have less of a drop in reverse but I just wanted to test it the normal way. I was trying to use it as generically as possible.
The common factor to each of these cables is the plug. The performance of these plugs is critical to the overall performance of link. I am starting to wonder if these cables are using plugs that meet the requirements of the plugs laid down in the standards
The utp cables (cat5e and cat6) control their crosstalk by the twist rate in the pairs , whereas the the shielded cables (cat 6a/7/8) use individually shielded pairs with an overall shield that varies from a single overall foil up to an overall foil and an overall braid. The overall shielding is improved to improve alien crosstalk and reduce electromagnetic interference or noise from external sources.
Each of the cables start with the thinnest wire gauge of 24awg on the 5a cable up to 22gauge wire used on the 1:47 cat8 cables. The larger gauge of wire improves the attenuation of the signal
I'm not sure, I have posted the links to the cables if you want to look more into it. I just bought cables that had really good ratings on Amazon. I didn't want to get a spool either, just wanted to get something premade from the factory that I could just test.
The cat6a is not shielded. You can get a shielded cat6a but that is something you have to pay extra for. It also would do nothing here.
@ I agree it is an option. But the vast majority of the 6a cables sold through the web have individual foil shielded pairs. This makes a Massive difference to the near and far end crosstalk of the cable and according massively effects the ACR (attenuation to crosstalk ratio) of the cable.
@@peternjulia they have to be marked s/ftp (shield+foil), s/utp (shield), u/ftp (foil). If no mark is advertised it is always going to be u/utp (unshielded) as that is simply cheaper. The cable he has in the video is unmarked which means it is 99% u/utp. You can also tell from the connector, which is plastic and therefore not the shielded type.
As to the massive difference, that difference is mostly that shielded cables fail to work correctly if you do not ground them correctly. He also demonstrated that in a previous video, where his shielded 90 meter cat 7 and cat 8 cables failed to do 10G while his unshielded cat 6a did just fine. For that reason you should never get a shielded cable unless you know how to ground them.
Do you have an additional router so you can place the antennas in the middle of the coiled cable and repeat the test? Or a 100w classic light bulb, a smartphone with Bluetooth and a switched on mouse would be enough. A kitchen mixer would probably ruin all the results if it was switched on.
I have a few videos on the queue but I’ll consider doing it with the cake mixer in between the coil.
Microwave oven next to the coil.
@@landpetsolar inverters or 12V to mains voltage converters under load are usually very noisy
Yep. 100W bulb is a "clean" load. It won't do much. A switch mode PSU is much better. Or even a motor running via an inverter. Trust me that will kill the 5e link almost completely.
Source : I'm a (test) automation engineer - things like that happen. CAT5e can work - but isn't guaranteed to do so. And trust me the few bucks saved isn't worth the massive trouble and hours wasted debugging random network problems
@TheRailroad99 I didn't mention powering a 100w bulb with pure electricity. But you're right that a transformer winding would cause more interference when reducing or amplifying the voltage.
Since you are getting the same packet loss numbers for all cables at each speed, it is time to start looking at other areas of the network as the point of the problem. Take the switch out of the equation first and just go direct between the PCs. If you still have problems, replace the NIC in the PC since that is easiest, and if it still has the same numbers then replace the MacMini.
At this point I dont think you are really testing the cables performance since they are all identical, but rather the performance of the weakest link in your network, probably the MacMini since some of the older gens were known to have faulty Ethernet connections so it stands that the newer one may have a similar issue.
Not a bad idea but I'm trying to keep it as realistic as possible, people don't typically wire one computer to another. I'm trying to test them on a local network. Maybe it will improve if I go direct or maybe one of the cards is bad but I'm trying to keep it as realistic as possible. Granted maybe I should introduce some interference.
You will find that iperf can show packet loss even when testing on the localhost interface. This is because the kernel may drop some packets when it can't keep up.
The cables are not dropping a single packet in the tests he is doing.
A query regarding your methodology: As I understand it you are connecting Computer A to a switch and Computer B to the same switch, and swapping out the cable between B and the switch. Should you not be swapping out Both cables (like to like) to have a valid test? Particularly at the cat 7 and 8 speeds? Or did I miss something here?
You're correct, the other cable is a short Cat7 cable but since it's going through a switch I was only changing one side. When I performed other tests on the other videos getting to 300ft, only the Cat6A was able to achieve the almost 10Gbps speeds, the rest were unable. So I'm just switching one side as the weakest link.
@ OK but to be a proper test should not Both sides have the same able? Otherwise you may be constrained by the common cable as you are measuring transfers to computer A .
That's weird, what plus did you use for cat6+ ?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I used cat6 and cat6a cables.
@@landpet Ah, an unfortunate typo, would not understand that either! Of course I meant "plugs" but now I see that you have cables with factory plugs, so the question is irrelevant.
Interesting experiments, from my experience 1GbE will run fine over anything at these distances - I have very subpar wiring in my house (multiple cat5e cables soldered together, insulation gone in some places to get it under doors etc... not my finest work :D) and it has no problems at all. It originally started as 100Mbit network so I really didn't care back then.
Perhaps some comparison between flexible (stranded) and solid copper wire?
You can push for much longer lengths by leaving the cable in the box and out a keystone jack or rj45 plug on each end ;-)
I've ran the 300ft cables with a similar test to this one. The results were different for the 300ft version, well that video was using openspeedtest server, no packet loss test. th-cam.com/video/3CR0_zPWKpI/w-d-xo.html
@ could make another video with the the packet loss. I think that that will show much bigger differences
Great stuff!
Thanks!
Now add common interference.
Say a 110V/230V in parallel like it's typical in buildings.
Now run a pulsed load through it. For example a 500W PC PSU. You will be surprised to see why we have developed shielding in the first place.
In my parents home I reused CAt3 ISDN cabling in the wall to run gigabit.
Works without packet loss most of the time. But that's the point of it - this was a risk, and not professional. CAT5e CAN do 10G - but it isn't guaranteed to do so in noisy home or even industrial environments. CAT7/8 is.
I’ll consider it for the future, I have some router videos I gotta get to. Thanks for the suggestions
The results are sooooo depressing. I just bought CAT8 to replace my existing house that has CAT5e. Nothing negative about your video, i was hoping CAT8 out shine all the other cables. Dang it.
Cat8 is designed to handle 40Gbps, so it is more future proof than this once the hardware is ready. I was in the same boat, I didn't realize cat5e was so fast.
I don't understand why you compare 10, 4, 3, 2 and 1G when most devices are either 10, 5, 2.5 or 1G, would be more interesting to see comparisons to actual hardware.
Just slowing it down to show the packet losses
You cannot test cable this way. Cable problem usually means random errors, they would be seen on both TCP and UDP tests. Cable does not care about the packet type. With 25% of packet loss, the TCP speed should be horrible, i doubt it could reach 1G even. In normal situation same would go for a switch. If it is not some "special" packet that switch has "look into/snooping" enabled or some weird optimization for packet types then maybe, but very doubtful. Most probable cause is that one of the computer has some performance issue with that type traffic. Check the CPU utilization, try same test with parallel execution. Run multiple instances of iperf on different ports with lower speed, usually every instance will get its own CPU core.
Can you do the same but with 10 wifi types 6-7 from cheap to high end?
not a bad idea but I don't have all the wifi categories of devices, maybe I can make a shorter list with wifi but it would really be using a mix of different devices, so it wouldn't be a clean comparison like this one.
This is sooooo helpful!
Glad you think so!
If you connect two computers directly with a cable the shilding is not grounded or earthed. For that your cable must be assembled on a jack for patch frames.The frame has to be connected to the potential equalisation of the house or building. The grounding shoud be cabled with 6 mm² . Only then the shielding can work properly.
this test is incomplete. conclusions are misleading.
shielding matters (FTP STP UDP), length matters, interference matters.
those result only hold true at short distance.
Ive done tests with longer cables and length definitely matters but at 100ft, they were all pretty similar
👍👍👍🤝🤝🤝
thanks for watching
Cat6 doesn’t exist 😢