| 1 |
On Tuesday 04 Apr 2017 09:12:16 thelma@×××××××××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/04/2017 01:26 AM, Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Monday 03 Apr 2017 20:21:28 thelma@×××××××××××.com wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> >> The Cat5 is about 15-20meter long, I test it with a cable tester, it is |
| 6 |
> >> good (all the lights light up in correct order). |
| 7 |
> >> Cable is plugged in into a new switch. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This may merely indicate they have been wired correctly (pin to pin). Unless |
| 10 |
your tester is 'intelligent' to also measure things like attenuation, DC loop |
| 11 |
resistance and cross talk and it can also calculate attenuation to cross talk |
| 12 |
ratio, you cannot be sure your cable will perform to specification. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > Long cables are more susceptible to electromagnetic interference - keep |
| 16 |
> > their runs separate from mains cables. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Shouldn't CAT5 be able to handle 100m run? |
| 19 |
> Am not sure I understand, "keep their runs separate from mains cables"? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Cat5e should be able to perform as specified in lengths up to 100m, when |
| 22 |
correctly terminated and without high cross talk. If your ethernet cable |
| 23 |
installation is running parallel to mains power and in close physical |
| 24 |
proximity, it may pick up noise, which will reduce its performance. It is |
| 25 |
better where ethernet and mains runs come together to cross them at 90 degrees |
| 26 |
angles to minimise the effect of interference. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Either way, you have lost carrier errors. Random google result on causes of |
| 29 |
lost carrier errors, in case it helps: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/9543606/what-causes-output-errors-ethernet-interface |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Regards, |
| 35 |
Mick |
Archives