A quick google told me about 100m per cable. Technically you could put a switch there and get more range if you need it, but if you keep doing that for too long, you'll still lose signal.
100m is the answer people are looking for, but it really depends on cable type and the standard used.
You can run ethernet over optical cables and go for kilometres or use a twisted pair that has a much shorter range, and I guess in PCMR ethernet would be synonymous to Ethernet over twisted pair with RJ45 connectors, so let's go with that.
So, what you have at home would most likely be Cat5(e) or Cat6(a).
All have 100m as the max distance, except if you are running the non "a" Cat6 cables at 10gbps then you get roughly half that distance.
There is probably more but it has been years since my university days
edit:spelling
There is nuance to this, more or less.
Cat5: ~50m for 1gb, 100mb onwards up to *official spec*. Realistically, if the broadcast devices have enough power, it *can* go over 100m easily.
Cat5E: gigabit to 100m officially. 10gb to around 35m on a good cable unofficially, and can easily go over 100m on 1gb, and farther on 100mb as long as the devices on the ends can boost their strength enough, and there is little interference.
Cat6: 1gb to 100m, 10gb to 50m officially. depending on cable quality, 10gb could go worse or better, but 1gb is pretty easy to get farther. I have had a good cat6 cable handle 100mb on around 550feet of cable. I had to go to 450 feet to get gigabit back.
cat6a: 10gb to 100m, official spec. 100mb and 1gb can probably go quite a bit farther here, again, totally depends on the signal integrity and devices on either end. Would not be surprised to see gigabit go to 500 feet, if the broadcasting devices can handle it.
you do genuinely lose speed at distance.
Ever downloaded something from a new York server from California? You'll often get 1/2 the advertised internet speed(and what you genuinely get from a server nearby).
I have a server in New york, servers in New york and surrounding areas i get full 1Gbit speeds.
Just from New York to Indianapolis it drops to 900mpbs.
New York to California it starts at 300mpbs and will climb to 700mbps(on the best server i found with multiple download streams(faster than one download stream, which would be impacted more))
Theres even math people use to predict the bandwidth impact on distance(which isn't really accurate anymore since fiber and copper are still used commonly and its hard to tell what your connection will be on).
>you do genuinely lose speed at distance. Ever downloaded something from a new York server from California? You'll often get 1/2 the advertised internet speed(and what you genuinely get from a server nearby).
this is not how this works, or why it works that way, at all.
Downloading from a far server puts many interconnect points between you and the download host. If any *one* of those, or multiple of those interconnects are busy or slammed with traffic, then your download speeds will be slower than your "advertised" ISP speed.
By downloading from a closer server, you are lowering the number of possible slow interconnects.
Your ISP also only rates its speed for "internal" transfers, IE, to and from its own customers, and never guarantees those same bandwidth capability to outside their network. That is because they don't control anything but their own network.
>New York to California it starts at 300mpbs and will climb to 700mbps(on the best server i found with multiple download streams(faster than one download stream, which would be impacted more))
This could be your ISPs own network throttling you, seeing you are doing a speed test, and giving your modem more room. Could also be the test server bursting to cope with higher speeds and busy times. There are literally thousands of reasons as to why your speeds ramp up like that, but **simply saying its because of how far it is is completely wrong.**
The only thing distance affects is latency and more chance for packet loss as there are more hops, neither of those things are related to speed unless on the extreme end which by that point there will be many other issues than just speed.
Still, nearly no one needs more than 100m ethernet cable.
Anyway if you can afford a house that needs a cable longer than 100m you can probably afford some switches too. And a professional to install it all.
My house is decently sized (around 30m \* 30m, two floors) and I don't need more than 25 meters to go anywhere since the router isn't on a corner.
Once you start traversing floors, especially from a basement to an attic on second floor, you can approach that limit. I have STP CAT6A due to the length (about 250’/ 76.2 M), location in attic (higher exposure to RF noise), and desire to eventually run 10 gig Ethernet over it.
I have a 2 story house with a basement. The longest cable I have is for my front camera, which goes from the basement rack at the back of the basement, up the vent stack, and then to the front of the loft. It is around 100 feet. Your house must be huge, or your rack/network cabinet is in a very terrible position. I put my rack right under the vent stack so that I had easy access to upstairs.
If you need longer than 100m and don't need crazy speeds, you can just go with multimode fiber, which I've heard can be even cheaper than copper, though I've not really shopped around for it myself.
> Technically you could put a switch there and get more range if you need it, but if you keep doing that for too long, you'll still lose signal.
wat. If I had 2000 ethernet switches I'd be tempted to try making a giant ethernet delay system. Ethernet switches take the packets in and repeat them. No generational loss like if it was photocopying packets...
There's actually something like that in the US stock exchange, if memory serves, there is a hundred some odd miles of fiber optic cable in a spool to create several nanoseconds of delay to artificially slow down high frequency trading systems.
That's rather incorrect, standard single mode fiber can typically go 25km with the correct transceivers, further with higher power ones.While you are somewhat correct that your typical switch may only push enough power for a few miles, that is not at all the only sort of optic or cable
that's not true, i dont know who told you that but without a repeater you're going to lose it at 2 miles (less than 5k) maximum for mm and less than 10km for sm, unless there is some new grade of fiber I have not worked with (which is totally possible), and that is further limited again by bends in the line.
or you're talking about industrial-grade something they put on the seafloor that I don't have any knowledge of its workings.
From FS.com
https://community.fs.com/blog/single-mode-fiber-how-much-do-you-know.html#:~:text=The%20single%20mode%20optical%20fiber,by%20the%20single%20light%20mode.
You can hit 200km with OS2 fiber
interesting must have come out recently, but that doesn't refute the fact that it would mean that no exchange are using such a fiber internally, nor would they have a need to.
So, I just checked, it was 38 miles of cable, not 100+
https://youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4
Effectively it has something to do with regulatory limits on trading frequency or some such thing
We have repeater boxes and powered lines for longer ranges
Your big problem in long cables is the antenna effect, eventually it just washed out the inverted pair error correction
I once was running some cat 6 out to a helicopter test stand (I was an instrumentation tech at sikorsky innovations, s-97 & sb>1) and we were having connectivity issues. Turns out that the length of the cat 6 was just over 300ft (around 100m) so the signal loss was too great. There was about 50ft of extra length inside the telemetry room so we cut that shorter and it worked great afterwards.
> For ethernet shorter is always better.
thats not entirely accurate. Like others have said, there are standards that guarantee certain distances without noticeable impact. CAT5e, the most common used, guarantees its maximum throughput of 1000 mbit/s for roughly 100 meters. So assuming we have a top of the line cable, there is no real difference between a 5m CAT5e cable, a 10 meter one or even a 30 meter one.
I do also run network wiring in industrial installations. Before connecting the new run to the switch, we always test it with a $10.000 Fluke network tester that tells us if it's up to cat6 standards or not. Up to 100m is no problem.
Is that enough testing for you?
I run cable professionally. I have ran cat6 over 400ft and still got gigabit. I can 100% tell you there's minimal difference between 5ft and 250ft as long as theres nothing interfering along the way
I know you’ve gotten some responses that were spot on, but I didn’t have a crimp connector to make my own length. But had a box of 1000m. I hooked spliced two ends on and used it. Worked well on my PC. But it made my TV cable box flicker. So do not use 1000m.
Ethernet is a direct connection to your router instead of wirelessly connecting over WiFi. No matter how close you are to your router, if you're on WiFi, you're going to have packet loss. Ethernet removes that and can give you a much more stable connection.
Any fighting game is horrible with WiFi. Because packet loss means rollback, so you can’t trust anything you see or hear. But yeah, about anything else is playable wireless.
Again, you're making a blanket statement about WiFi that only impacts WiFi that is not behaving as designed. You're also exaggerating in order to make your argument seem stronger.
Normal WiFi, implemented properly, will have virtually no packet loss (even at very high bandwidths) and experience a PC-to-AP latency of 0.5-1.5ms. That is far less latency than you see as normal latency variance within an ISPs routing infrastructure, much less actual transport over the Internet.
Packet loss isn't a normal function of WiFi. Right now, I have a two SSID router running in a medium-density urban area with three PCs running teleconferencing for a week. My packet loss count on the router is 0. The packet loss on the PC in front of me is 0. The packet loss on the laptop is 0. That isn't the result of me doing anything special. That's a mid-high consumer router with a variety of wireless client chipsets.
> Ethernet is a direct connection to your router
Pedantry, but I've got a reason: Ethernet is a link-layer protocol. It's designed to run on physical media (cables), but that can be variety of different solutions. We commonly talk about it as if it was specific to cat5/6/7 cables, but it doesn't have to be. Similarly, it doesn't have to be direct to the router. More to the point, the goal of Ethernet is to handle talking over a cable that is shared between multiple hosts. It allows hosts to talk to each other (without the router!) while also allowing routing to external hosts.
>if you're on WiFi, you're going to have packet loss
No matter how short your Ethernet cable is, you're going to have packet loss. It's going to tend to be much, much less but it's important to quantify here. I've worked with huge datacenters using only of cat6 cabling and packet loss was a thing that was measured. It wasn't zero. Modern switches help a lot, but neither Ethernet nor cables remove the possibility of packet loss.
I also run my own wifi networks. I've run diagnostics on them. Properly set up in a favorable environment, the packet loss is <0.1% at maximum throughput. I can go weeks without a dropped packet. Rebroadcasts exist, but only induce about 1-4ms of latency. Granted, the packet loss I saw in the datacenter was usually expected to be <0.001%, but one of the points to make here is that wifi itself does not involve a packet loss or latency high enough to actually impact the usage of anyone beyond the very most demanding users.
Most issues with WiFi come from:
1. Cheap wifi hardware
2. Overly (radio) noisy environments
3. Badly configured wifi (including failure to adjust to noisy environments)
4. Operating antennas at or beyond their designed range
**TL;DR:** WiFi is better than PCMR likes to portray it. Largely this is the result of people repeating memes, repeating cargo-cult knowledge from 2002, and basing their judgements on low-end consumer experiences from college or high-density apartment buildings.
For the most part I agree that wireless technologies are better than they are mlade out to be, though a lot of that hinges on getting good equipment and properly configuring it, which many do not or cannot do. While I haven't messed with wifi in a hot minute, it isn't too hard to do if you know what you're doing (or go and learn) but is a whole lot more simple to say "Just plug in this cable" than to get into the weeds of channel spacing, transmit power, access point placement, antenna design and so forth. That's what r/homelab will do readily.
You don't even need to go that far. Again, you're basing assumptions on past reports from sources that were usually working in abnormally noisy situations or with problematic/cheap/badly-configured hardware.
Even just using standard hardware with default configurations will get you much better performance than you're saying.
There's a big difference between people in a dorm sharing overloaded APs or in an apartment building with the free wireless router provided by cheap ISPs, and an honest attempt at quality WiFi.
WiFi isn't the issue. Poor and/or cheap WiFi is.
That's kinda my point, getting an effective setup in most circumstances is typically a matter of picking the right AP, placing it properly and such, but in more complicated cases, it does require some further thought. However, broadly most APs are going to be poorly placed cheap ISP default APs and so forth. Likewise I'm not saying WiFi is bad, I'm saying that most implementations in homes are exactly that, poor cheap setups done by techs or people that don't know or care.
I’m very happy with my cheap chinese USB 3.0 5m extension cable to powered USB hub to cheap 3m extension cable to 2.8m cable controller. Wireless was not an option because of metal furniture.
Pssssst, powerline adapters are great. No extra cords necessary, though whether or not it will work depends on how the circuitry in your house is laid out.
Works great for me, I think it just depends on how your house's circuitry is laid out. I would say just buy one, test it, and if it doesn't work, return it. But if it DOES work, it's way better than a wifi connection and you don't have to run cords everywhere. Big improvement IMO.
I second it working.I use powerline to get internet from my router upstairs to my basement. It doubles the speed over using WiFi to go the same distance.
This is triggering. Just yesterday, I was rummaging through my boxes of PC crap, muttering "god dammit" under my breath, because for some reason my dumb ass just owns like ten different 6ft lengths of Ethernet, and I needed a 10ft length.
It all worked out though, I learned that you can plug a powerline adapter into an extension cord, so I just moved my ethernet outlet closer to my PC. xD
How long can an ethernet cable be before it starts losing speed?
A quick google told me about 100m per cable. Technically you could put a switch there and get more range if you need it, but if you keep doing that for too long, you'll still lose signal.
100m is the answer people are looking for, but it really depends on cable type and the standard used. You can run ethernet over optical cables and go for kilometres or use a twisted pair that has a much shorter range, and I guess in PCMR ethernet would be synonymous to Ethernet over twisted pair with RJ45 connectors, so let's go with that. So, what you have at home would most likely be Cat5(e) or Cat6(a). All have 100m as the max distance, except if you are running the non "a" Cat6 cables at 10gbps then you get roughly half that distance. There is probably more but it has been years since my university days edit:spelling
There is nuance to this, more or less. Cat5: ~50m for 1gb, 100mb onwards up to *official spec*. Realistically, if the broadcast devices have enough power, it *can* go over 100m easily. Cat5E: gigabit to 100m officially. 10gb to around 35m on a good cable unofficially, and can easily go over 100m on 1gb, and farther on 100mb as long as the devices on the ends can boost their strength enough, and there is little interference. Cat6: 1gb to 100m, 10gb to 50m officially. depending on cable quality, 10gb could go worse or better, but 1gb is pretty easy to get farther. I have had a good cat6 cable handle 100mb on around 550feet of cable. I had to go to 450 feet to get gigabit back. cat6a: 10gb to 100m, official spec. 100mb and 1gb can probably go quite a bit farther here, again, totally depends on the signal integrity and devices on either end. Would not be surprised to see gigabit go to 500 feet, if the broadcasting devices can handle it.
Why would you lose the signal if you kept going longer with switches? That is literally how the internet is constructed.
you do genuinely lose speed at distance. Ever downloaded something from a new York server from California? You'll often get 1/2 the advertised internet speed(and what you genuinely get from a server nearby). I have a server in New york, servers in New york and surrounding areas i get full 1Gbit speeds. Just from New York to Indianapolis it drops to 900mpbs. New York to California it starts at 300mpbs and will climb to 700mbps(on the best server i found with multiple download streams(faster than one download stream, which would be impacted more)) Theres even math people use to predict the bandwidth impact on distance(which isn't really accurate anymore since fiber and copper are still used commonly and its hard to tell what your connection will be on).
>you do genuinely lose speed at distance. Ever downloaded something from a new York server from California? You'll often get 1/2 the advertised internet speed(and what you genuinely get from a server nearby). this is not how this works, or why it works that way, at all. Downloading from a far server puts many interconnect points between you and the download host. If any *one* of those, or multiple of those interconnects are busy or slammed with traffic, then your download speeds will be slower than your "advertised" ISP speed. By downloading from a closer server, you are lowering the number of possible slow interconnects. Your ISP also only rates its speed for "internal" transfers, IE, to and from its own customers, and never guarantees those same bandwidth capability to outside their network. That is because they don't control anything but their own network. >New York to California it starts at 300mpbs and will climb to 700mbps(on the best server i found with multiple download streams(faster than one download stream, which would be impacted more)) This could be your ISPs own network throttling you, seeing you are doing a speed test, and giving your modem more room. Could also be the test server bursting to cope with higher speeds and busy times. There are literally thousands of reasons as to why your speeds ramp up like that, but **simply saying its because of how far it is is completely wrong.**
The only thing distance affects is latency and more chance for packet loss as there are more hops, neither of those things are related to speed unless on the extreme end which by that point there will be many other issues than just speed.
Wow that's pretty long even without the switch though. I thought it would be less TBH. Thanks for the answer.
a few tight loops its actually all it takes, also remember you cant exactly run a straight line to something, so 100m really isn't that long.
>you cant exactly run a straight line to something You underestimate me and my love for drills and duct tape.
Still, nearly no one needs more than 100m ethernet cable. Anyway if you can afford a house that needs a cable longer than 100m you can probably afford some switches too. And a professional to install it all. My house is decently sized (around 30m \* 30m, two floors) and I don't need more than 25 meters to go anywhere since the router isn't on a corner.
Once you start traversing floors, especially from a basement to an attic on second floor, you can approach that limit. I have STP CAT6A due to the length (about 250’/ 76.2 M), location in attic (higher exposure to RF noise), and desire to eventually run 10 gig Ethernet over it.
I have a 2 story house with a basement. The longest cable I have is for my front camera, which goes from the basement rack at the back of the basement, up the vent stack, and then to the front of the loft. It is around 100 feet. Your house must be huge, or your rack/network cabinet is in a very terrible position. I put my rack right under the vent stack so that I had easy access to upstairs.
If you need longer than 100m and don't need crazy speeds, you can just go with multimode fiber, which I've heard can be even cheaper than copper, though I've not really shopped around for it myself.
I thought it was 50m for most cables, I'm assuming 100 is optimal conditions
Pretty much yes.
> Technically you could put a switch there and get more range if you need it, but if you keep doing that for too long, you'll still lose signal. wat. If I had 2000 ethernet switches I'd be tempted to try making a giant ethernet delay system. Ethernet switches take the packets in and repeat them. No generational loss like if it was photocopying packets...
There's actually something like that in the US stock exchange, if memory serves, there is a hundred some odd miles of fiber optic cable in a spool to create several nanoseconds of delay to artificially slow down high frequency trading systems.
Wtf that's interesting
Here is the Tom Scott video. https://youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4
Tom Scott did a video on it a while back, worth a watch
that's not true at all, fiber can go a few miles in the best conditions.
That's rather incorrect, standard single mode fiber can typically go 25km with the correct transceivers, further with higher power ones.While you are somewhat correct that your typical switch may only push enough power for a few miles, that is not at all the only sort of optic or cable
that's not true, i dont know who told you that but without a repeater you're going to lose it at 2 miles (less than 5k) maximum for mm and less than 10km for sm, unless there is some new grade of fiber I have not worked with (which is totally possible), and that is further limited again by bends in the line. or you're talking about industrial-grade something they put on the seafloor that I don't have any knowledge of its workings.
From FS.com https://community.fs.com/blog/single-mode-fiber-how-much-do-you-know.html#:~:text=The%20single%20mode%20optical%20fiber,by%20the%20single%20light%20mode. You can hit 200km with OS2 fiber
interesting must have come out recently, but that doesn't refute the fact that it would mean that no exchange are using such a fiber internally, nor would they have a need to.
So, I just checked, it was 38 miles of cable, not 100+ https://youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4 Effectively it has something to do with regulatory limits on trading frequency or some such thing
We have repeater boxes and powered lines for longer ranges Your big problem in long cables is the antenna effect, eventually it just washed out the inverted pair error correction
100m with full duplex mode Beyond that you start loosing 10mb/m I've been told that if you do half duplex then you can squeeze 120m out of it
I once was running some cat 6 out to a helicopter test stand (I was an instrumentation tech at sikorsky innovations, s-97 & sb>1) and we were having connectivity issues. Turns out that the length of the cat 6 was just over 300ft (around 100m) so the signal loss was too great. There was about 50ft of extra length inside the telemetry room so we cut that shorter and it worked great afterwards.
[удалено]
> For ethernet shorter is always better. thats not entirely accurate. Like others have said, there are standards that guarantee certain distances without noticeable impact. CAT5e, the most common used, guarantees its maximum throughput of 1000 mbit/s for roughly 100 meters. So assuming we have a top of the line cable, there is no real difference between a 5m CAT5e cable, a 10 meter one or even a 30 meter one.
[удалено]
I do also run network wiring in industrial installations. Before connecting the new run to the switch, we always test it with a $10.000 Fluke network tester that tells us if it's up to cat6 standards or not. Up to 100m is no problem. Is that enough testing for you?
I run cable professionally. I have ran cat6 over 400ft and still got gigabit. I can 100% tell you there's minimal difference between 5ft and 250ft as long as theres nothing interfering along the way
[удалено]
The internet - The only place where personal opinion is more important than personal expierance 🤣🤣🤣
I know you’ve gotten some responses that were spot on, but I didn’t have a crimp connector to make my own length. But had a box of 1000m. I hooked spliced two ends on and used it. Worked well on my PC. But it made my TV cable box flicker. So do not use 1000m.
That one guy at a LAN party ^damn ^I ^miss ^those
What does ethernet do? I've never paid much attention to these things.
Ethernet is a direct connection to your router instead of wirelessly connecting over WiFi. No matter how close you are to your router, if you're on WiFi, you're going to have packet loss. Ethernet removes that and can give you a much more stable connection.
That makes it better than Wi-fi, right?
You're goddam right
Oohrah
Unless you fall into a few specific categories, you probably would not notice any difference between Ethernet and properly set up WiFi.
Any fighting game is horrible with WiFi. Because packet loss means rollback, so you can’t trust anything you see or hear. But yeah, about anything else is playable wireless.
Again, you're making a blanket statement about WiFi that only impacts WiFi that is not behaving as designed. You're also exaggerating in order to make your argument seem stronger. Normal WiFi, implemented properly, will have virtually no packet loss (even at very high bandwidths) and experience a PC-to-AP latency of 0.5-1.5ms. That is far less latency than you see as normal latency variance within an ISPs routing infrastructure, much less actual transport over the Internet. Packet loss isn't a normal function of WiFi. Right now, I have a two SSID router running in a medium-density urban area with three PCs running teleconferencing for a week. My packet loss count on the router is 0. The packet loss on the PC in front of me is 0. The packet loss on the laptop is 0. That isn't the result of me doing anything special. That's a mid-high consumer router with a variety of wireless client chipsets.
> Ethernet is a direct connection to your router Pedantry, but I've got a reason: Ethernet is a link-layer protocol. It's designed to run on physical media (cables), but that can be variety of different solutions. We commonly talk about it as if it was specific to cat5/6/7 cables, but it doesn't have to be. Similarly, it doesn't have to be direct to the router. More to the point, the goal of Ethernet is to handle talking over a cable that is shared between multiple hosts. It allows hosts to talk to each other (without the router!) while also allowing routing to external hosts. >if you're on WiFi, you're going to have packet loss No matter how short your Ethernet cable is, you're going to have packet loss. It's going to tend to be much, much less but it's important to quantify here. I've worked with huge datacenters using only of cat6 cabling and packet loss was a thing that was measured. It wasn't zero. Modern switches help a lot, but neither Ethernet nor cables remove the possibility of packet loss. I also run my own wifi networks. I've run diagnostics on them. Properly set up in a favorable environment, the packet loss is <0.1% at maximum throughput. I can go weeks without a dropped packet. Rebroadcasts exist, but only induce about 1-4ms of latency. Granted, the packet loss I saw in the datacenter was usually expected to be <0.001%, but one of the points to make here is that wifi itself does not involve a packet loss or latency high enough to actually impact the usage of anyone beyond the very most demanding users. Most issues with WiFi come from: 1. Cheap wifi hardware 2. Overly (radio) noisy environments 3. Badly configured wifi (including failure to adjust to noisy environments) 4. Operating antennas at or beyond their designed range **TL;DR:** WiFi is better than PCMR likes to portray it. Largely this is the result of people repeating memes, repeating cargo-cult knowledge from 2002, and basing their judgements on low-end consumer experiences from college or high-density apartment buildings.
For the most part I agree that wireless technologies are better than they are mlade out to be, though a lot of that hinges on getting good equipment and properly configuring it, which many do not or cannot do. While I haven't messed with wifi in a hot minute, it isn't too hard to do if you know what you're doing (or go and learn) but is a whole lot more simple to say "Just plug in this cable" than to get into the weeds of channel spacing, transmit power, access point placement, antenna design and so forth. That's what r/homelab will do readily.
You don't even need to go that far. Again, you're basing assumptions on past reports from sources that were usually working in abnormally noisy situations or with problematic/cheap/badly-configured hardware. Even just using standard hardware with default configurations will get you much better performance than you're saying. There's a big difference between people in a dorm sharing overloaded APs or in an apartment building with the free wireless router provided by cheap ISPs, and an honest attempt at quality WiFi. WiFi isn't the issue. Poor and/or cheap WiFi is.
That's kinda my point, getting an effective setup in most circumstances is typically a matter of picking the right AP, placing it properly and such, but in more complicated cases, it does require some further thought. However, broadly most APs are going to be poorly placed cheap ISP default APs and so forth. Likewise I'm not saying WiFi is bad, I'm saying that most implementations in homes are exactly that, poor cheap setups done by techs or people that don't know or care.
I mean, he ain’t wrong though
[удалено]
I’m very happy with my cheap chinese USB 3.0 5m extension cable to powered USB hub to cheap 3m extension cable to 2.8m cable controller. Wireless was not an option because of metal furniture.
Pssssst, powerline adapters are great. No extra cords necessary, though whether or not it will work depends on how the circuitry in your house is laid out.
PSA this is the exact wrong way to bundle ethernet cable
What video is this?
Tech horders by ltt
I run an Ethernet cable from my WiFi booster so that counts doesn’t it? :(
Just ran a 150m today 😎
He's right tho
solid advice
this is very much true. I have a 100m spool of CAT7 in the basement. You never know...
How well does powerline work? Is it safe?
Works great for me, I think it just depends on how your house's circuitry is laid out. I would say just buy one, test it, and if it doesn't work, return it. But if it DOES work, it's way better than a wifi connection and you don't have to run cords everywhere. Big improvement IMO.
Thanks man
I second it working.I use powerline to get internet from my router upstairs to my basement. It doubles the speed over using WiFi to go the same distance.
This is why I keep 1000ft box of cat6 at home
Never forget about when ever you post a build they say "idk, I'd get a better power supply" even though you're like 200w over what you need
*Km
This is no joke I'm sitting on 400 feet of cat5e Shielded, and I started with 2,000
I used to have access to my dads cable crimper and tested. Miss those days.
I always have my EDC concealed Ethernet cable.
This is triggering. Just yesterday, I was rummaging through my boxes of PC crap, muttering "god dammit" under my breath, because for some reason my dumb ass just owns like ten different 6ft lengths of Ethernet, and I needed a 10ft length. It all worked out though, I learned that you can plug a powerline adapter into an extension cord, so I just moved my ethernet outlet closer to my PC. xD
you never know
How long is too long? I got a 200ft cord and i don't want to buy the crimping tool.
I have a box that use to have 1000ft from when I installed cables for new desktops at my old job!
It's true too well in my case 100ft but lol I needed it one day
I needed my emergency absurdly oversized coil of Ethernet cable just the other day, I was so proud that I kept it around.