Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Length of Ethernet
- Thread starter chrisjg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It can but it is not noticeable to any human. The difference is most measurable going from 100m down to say 1m. The difference is measureable on a local subnet, but I doubt you would even be able to measure it going through a home router/Internet connection.
Yes, there are going to be slight speed differences in drastically different cable lengths - but, like you said, they will not be noticeable to humans.
In addition, unless the OP's internet connection is faster than 100 Mbps (or 1Gbps, depending on LAN speed), they are not ever going to notice. The bottleneck is the WAN connection, not the LAN.
Yes the length of cable can affect speed if it goes beyond the industry accepted 100 meter limit.
It's not like ethernet suddenly brick-walls at 100m on standard copper.
Sometimes using high quality cable you can run 100-baseTX further than the accepted 100m limit if the run is straight, flat, and in a quiet RF environment.
Packet loss can be a problem in even short cable runs if the cable is of poor quality, the RF environment is very noisy, and you've looped the cable.
Hi..
Actually I am confused about the question that does the length of ethernet cable affect the speed of the internet or not?May be ethernet cable should longer than 100 meters.There should be slightly speed difference from it.
Actually I am confused about the question that does the length of ethernet cable affect the speed of the internet or not?May be ethernet cable should longer than 100 meters.There should be slightly speed difference from it.
Like I said above, it is measurable when on the same local subnet. However, it is not noticeable by any human. From the tests I've seen, it changes to the tune of milliseconds when going from 100m down to 1m. For an average home internet connections of speeds < 100 Mb, it's likely it couldn't even be measured.
Is there a minimum length of the cable? especially in server farms where sometimes the cables are just used to connect from one rack to the above. I vaguely remember someone telling me there is, not sure if it's true.
EDIT: found a link stating no minimum length
http://www.ctrlink.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
EDIT: found a link stating no minimum length
http://www.ctrlink.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
The only real minimum is functionality. a 1' cable is near useless just because it is so short it really limits you on what it can be connect to. Hell I could not even connect my router to my PC with a 1' cable if I could it would be really tight and that is with the router sitting on top of the PC. But a 3' cable is useful because it gives me enough slack to work with but not to much that it gets in the way.
For most desk function a 3'-10' cable can cover it because even with the router on top of my computer 10' of cable is not going to get in the way.
Now when you get up to 50'-100' range those have suck when using to connect to a router 2-3' away (and yes I have done it because it was all I had on hand)
It *does*--speed of light/electricity and all that. But it's not noticeably. Length can affect signal strength/packet loss, hence the 100m limit per the specs. Longer cables can work but they aren't within "spec" so performance guarantees get tossed.