[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 08/09/2012 14:06, Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Julian Hall wrote:On 08/09/2012 06:32, Cramptons wrote:On 07/09/12 13:11, Julian Hall wrote:I am reading all these postings about network hardware with direct interest. My set-up has for many years used Cat5e wiring, the only difference may be that mine is shielded. There was one initial problem that was soon overcome. The problem was that at one point there was a very sharp bend in one of the wires and the device on that part of the network was noticeably slower due to data errors and retransmissions .Hi All, I'm getting *very* slow speeds on my network. Pretty basic setup.. Virginmedia Superhub, NAS, PC. Data between the NAS and PC obviously going through the Superhub. All three devices have Gigibit ports, however I am getting speeds between 3 and 10Mb/s - varies depending on file size of course. My main concern is the cable in use. Currently I'm using Cat5e and the forums online give conflicting information regarding its' suitability, ranging from 'it may work' to 'it should work', up to 'it will work'. So I thought I'd ask a reliable known source, you guys and gals :) I don't want to be ripping out wiring and replacing it with expensive Cat6a (for example) if that's not where the problem lies.Hi to allBend eased and problem solved!If all connections are in good condition, without strain, and with no high voltage cables or wires physically touching the Cat5e wiring the problem lies almost certainly elsewhere. My hub/switch has been replaced several times and my experience is that this is the point of failure.Hope this saves your ripping out your wiring.Hi Mark,Thanks for your comments. There aren't any sharp bends in the wiring - at least not sharp enough to cause any stress to the wiring.. shielding may be an issue though as there is a lot of electrical equipment packed into a relatively small area, so that could be something that needs looking into. My computer, NAS and router have all been replaced at one point or other - prior to the Superhub I had an Edimax with Gigabit ports too, and that had the same transfer speed. The wiring being the only thing I haven't changed is what prompted my original query. In a nutshell, can Cat5e cabling support Gigabit speeds or not? :)appols for not trimming.. on mobile...
No problem.. thanks for replying :)
yes, cat5e can support Gb no problems.
Good :)
can you ping from pc
Yes
try ping with big packet size. flood ping. ping -a and so on. thatll quickly find gross packet loss.
The NAS box 192.168.0.2 (ZEUS) is being pinged from the desktop.
C:\Users\Julian>ping -l 65500 192.168.0.3
Pinging 192.168.0.3 with 65500 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=65500 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=65500 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=65500 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=65500 time=4ms TTL=64
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 3ms
C:\Users\Julian>ping -a 192.168.0.3
Pinging ZEUS [192.168.0.3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
C:\Users\Julian>ping -a 192.168.0.3
Pinging ZEUS [192.168.0.3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
C:\Users\Julian>ping -t 192.168.0.3
Pinging 192.168.0.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.3:
Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 20, Lost = 3 (13% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms
I don't know why the first three packets on the -t were lost.
Kind regards,
Julian
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq