I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses 2
pairs, but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
greater than 100Mb?

Cheers, and yes, I will get a bike soon.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:46:49 UTC, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses 2
> pairs

Where on earth did you find that? All Cat5 cable has 4 physical pairs. Maybe you're getting mixed up with the Ethernet protocols running over it, some of which (100baseTX and 1000baseTX) only used two of the four pairs.

> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
> greater than 100Mb?

Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.

Paul Carmichael wrote:

> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses 2
> pairs, but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs.

10/100Mb ethernet only uses two pairs (except the obscure 100base-T4 which uses
all four, I only have one device that can use that) also some
power-over-ethernet methods use the spare pairs.

1Gb/10Gb ethernet uses four pairs.

> Will they work at greater than 100Mb?

Provided the kit will ...

ogden wrote:
> Paul Carmichael wrote:
> > but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
> > greater than 100Mb?
>
> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.

Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.

On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
> ogden wrote:
>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>
>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>
> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.

I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:

> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>> ogden wrote:
>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>
>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>
>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT over
>> short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>
> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.

We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.

I've ordered a load of new 5e cables for this week, as I've been told
that our internet speed is now 300Mb. I will now have to check the
capabilities of all my kit.

Oh, and I found out this morning that ethernet cables can die. I threw
one away that had simply ceased to work.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>
>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>> ogden wrote:
>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>
>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>
>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT over
>>> short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>
>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>
>
> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>
> I've ordered a load of new 5e cables for this week, as I've been told
> that our internet speed is now 300Mb. I will now have to check the
> capabilities of all my kit.
>
> Oh, and I found out this morning that ethernet cables can die. I threw
> one away that had simply ceased to work.
>
>

That's a point. Some of my cables date back to way before I got to the
giddy height speeds I'm currently getting on Virgin 'Superfast' (213.9)
just now.

This box is also not straight in to the superhub but via an old TPLINK
router repurposed as a simple switch.[1]

<Attempts to trace lead in birds nest behind desk and re jig to 'direct'>

[1] 4/5 boxes (some not wifi enabled) and a home plug 'out' but only 4
ports on the hub.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375, Moto Morini 2C/350
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
1937 Sunbeam Model 14 250 Sports
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 15:51:26 +0000, Pete Fisher escribió:

> On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>>> ogden wrote:
>>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>>
>>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT
>>>> over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>>
>>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>>
>>
>> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>>
>> I've ordered a load of new 5e cables for this week, as I've been told
>> that our internet speed is now 300Mb. I will now have to check the
>> capabilities of all my kit.
>>
>> Oh, and I found out this morning that ethernet cables can die. I threw
>> one away that had simply ceased to work.
>>
>>
>>
> That's a point. Some of my cables date back to way before I got to the
> giddy height speeds I'm currently getting on Virgin 'Superfast' (213.9)
> just now.
>
> This box is also not straight in to the superhub but via an old TPLINK
> router repurposed as a simple switch.[1]
>
>
> <Attempts to trace lead in birds nest behind desk and re jig to
> 'direct'>

Heh. I was just messing around behind the cupboards where router, telly
etc. are. What a mess. And whilst poking around heard this crackling
noise...

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> This box is also not straight in to the superhub but via an old TPLINK
> router repurposed as a simple switch.[1]

Which will almost for sure be 10/100 at best, which is probably
fine for most things. I have a NAS connected to my network so I
definitely want it and my wired PCs to take full advantage of its
1000Base-T ports.

My home network is an ad hoc setup with at least 4 switches plumbed
together in a couple of different rooms, and a pair of Google WiFi
mesh routers, but all the switches are 1000Base-T. I've got quite
a lot of old crap in the computer room cupboard (10/100 switches,
routers, WiFi routers / access points) that I can't bring myself to
get rid of, as it's totally functional, just outdated.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses 2
> pairs, but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
> greater than 100Mb?
>
> Cheers, and yes, I will get a bike soon.

Cat5: https://twitter.com/Tippen22/status/1476985855981993984?s=20

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 16:49:29 +0000, Mark Olson escribió:

> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> This box is also not straight in to the superhub but via an old TPLINK
>> router repurposed as a simple switch.[1]
>
> Which will almost for sure be 10/100 at best, which is probably fine for
> most things. I have a NAS connected to my network so I definitely want
> it and my wired PCs to take full advantage of its 1000Base-T ports.
>
> My home network is an ad hoc setup with at least 4 switches plumbed
> together in a couple of different rooms, and a pair of Google WiFi mesh
> routers, but all the switches are 1000Base-T. I've got quite a lot of
> old crap in the computer room cupboard (10/100 switches, routers, WiFi
> routers / access points) that I can't bring myself to get rid of, as
> it's totally functional, just outdated.

Ditto. And I just noticed that the switch for telly/chromecast was
10/100. I don't know whether the telly etc. will take advantage of the
higher speed, but I've changed the switch anyway.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 9 Jan 2022 15:11:05 GMT, Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
wrote:

>El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>
>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>> ogden wrote:
>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>
>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>
>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT over
>>> short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>
>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>
>
>We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>
>I've ordered a load of new 5e cables for this week, as I've been told
>that our internet speed is now 300Mb. I will now have to check the
>capabilities of all my kit.

Ace was right - I need to move. Can't even get 10Mbit/s here.

>
>Oh, and I found out this morning that ethernet cables can die. I threw
>one away that had simply ceased to work.

I had a theory that network cables need some sort of keepalive traffic
to stay working - or at least untangled. Every time I needed a fresh
cable from the old spares box I'd spend longer separating the
individual ones than it would have taken to just crimp something up
fresh from scratch.

Once had to decommission a site with a mixture of ethernet and fibre -
three cabinets took a day apiece to recover all the useful (and at
that time very expensive) fibre cables.

--

Pete
Garage vacancy now filled, N+1 incremented accordingly
F800R

On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>
>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>> ogden wrote:
>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>
>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>
>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT over
>>> short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>
>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>
>
> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>
Yerbutt. Surely you wanted faster connection between devices within the
house?

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 19:00:35 +0000, YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk>
wrote:

>> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>Yerbutt. Surely you wanted faster connection between devices within the
>house?

Yep, I learnt this the hard way when I bought a NAS and started moving
gigabyte files to it from my HTPC. Took hours, so I bought a gigabit
hub....and some cat6 cables
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 10/01/2022 00:49 Mark Olson penned these words:
> I've got quite
> a lot of old crap in the computer room cupboard (10/100 switches,
> routers, WiFi routers / access points) that I can't bring myself to
> get rid of, as it's totally functional, just outdated.

I did have, the 10/100 stuff went to recycle at least 3 years back. Everything I
have is 1000 now, the place is wired with CAT6 which should given the run
lengths be good to 10GB.

--
Ian

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of
the last priest"

El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 19:00:35 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:

> On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>>> ogden wrote:
>>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>>
>>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT
>>>> over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>>
>>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>>
>>
>> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>>
> Yerbutt. Surely you wanted faster connection between devices within the
> house?

I rarely move stuff of any size between machines. My server might well
have a 10/100 interface...

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

>
>I rarely move stuff of any size between machines. My server might well
>have a 10/100 interface...
>

Things might change when you give up on the sat dish and move to online
viewing ;-)

--
Geoff

On 10/01/2022 09:02, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 19:00:35 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>
>> On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>>>
>>>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>>>> ogden wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT
>>>>> over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>>>
>>>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>>>
>>>
>>> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>>> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>>>
>> Yerbutt. Surely you wanted faster connection between devices within the
>> house?
>
>
> I rarely move stuff of any size between machines. My server might well
> have a 10/100 interface...
>
>

That must be an old server

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 19:00:35 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:

> On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>>
>>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>>> ogden wrote:
>>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>>
>>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT
>>>> over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>>
>>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>>
>>
>> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>>
> Yerbutt. Surely you wanted faster connection between devices within the
> house?

I just tested the link between this box and my server. It goes via a
switch. I must try with something connected to a different router port.

http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/netspeed.png

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

El Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:17:30 +0000, geoffC escribió:

>>I rarely move stuff of any size between machines. My server might well
>>have a 10/100 interface...
>>
>>
> Things might change when you give up on the sat dish and move to online
> viewing ;-)

The dish is for foreign stuff that I can't get online.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 03:01:39 -0800, ogden escribió:

> On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:46:49 UTC, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses 2
>> pairs
>
> Where on earth did you find that? All Cat5 cable has 4 physical pairs.
> Maybe you're getting mixed up with the Ethernet protocols running over
> it, some of which (100baseTX and 1000baseTX) only used two of the four
> pairs.

Just in the process of swapping out 5 for 5e and after pulling one out I
looked at the cable. It's labelled cat5e. I thought it seemed a bit thin.
Looking a bit closer...

http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/cat5e.jpg

The yellow cable is clearly marked cat5e. I have never made up a network
cable (not since coax), so I will have bought it like that.

The blue cable is marked cat5 and is thicker and stiffer.

Just sacrificed the yellow one:

http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/5emyarse.jpg

Scary.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 10/01/2022 15:40, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 03:01:39 -0800, ogden escribió:
>
>> On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:46:49 UTC, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses 2
>>> pairs
>>
>> Where on earth did you find that? All Cat5 cable has 4 physical pairs.
>> Maybe you're getting mixed up with the Ethernet protocols running over
>> it, some of which (100baseTX and 1000baseTX) only used two of the four
>> pairs.
>
> Just in the process of swapping out 5 for 5e and after pulling one out I
> looked at the cable. It's labelled cat5e. I thought it seemed a bit thin.
> Looking a bit closer...
>
>
> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/cat5e.jpg
>
>
> The yellow cable is clearly marked cat5e. I have never made up a network
> cable (not since coax), so I will have bought it like that.
>
> The blue cable is marked cat5 and is thicker and stiffer.
>
> Just sacrificed the yellow one:
>
> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/5emyarse.jpg
>
> Scary

What's scary? I don't think the thickness of the wire has anything to do
with the difference between 5 and 5e.

--
/Simon

El Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:40:06 +0000, siwilson escribió:

> On 10/01/2022 15:40, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 03:01:39 -0800, ogden escribió:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:46:49 UTC, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses
>>>> 2 pairs
>>>
>>> Where on earth did you find that? All Cat5 cable has 4 physical pairs.
>>> Maybe you're getting mixed up with the Ethernet protocols running over
>>> it, some of which (100baseTX and 1000baseTX) only used two of the four
>>> pairs.
>>
>> Just in the process of swapping out 5 for 5e and after pulling one out
>> I looked at the cable. It's labelled cat5e. I thought it seemed a bit
>> thin.
>> Looking a bit closer...
>>
>>
>> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/cat5e.jpg
>>
>>
>> The yellow cable is clearly marked cat5e. I have never made up a
>> network cable (not since coax), so I will have bought it like that.
>>
>> The blue cable is marked cat5 and is thicker and stiffer.
>>
>> Just sacrificed the yellow one:
>>
>> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/5emyarse.jpg
>>
>> Scary
>
> What's scary? I don't think the thickness of the wire has anything to do
> with the difference between 5 and 5e.

The so called 5e has only 4 wires. Somebody has stamped a 4 core cable
with cat5e. That's what's scary. How many other people have bought false
5e cables and limited their network to 100Mb?

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 10/01/2022 18:50, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:40:06 +0000, siwilson escribió:
>
>> On 10/01/2022 15:40, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 03:01:39 -0800, ogden escribió:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:46:49 UTC, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>> I've searched the internet and everywhere it says that cat5 only uses
>>>>> 2 pairs
>>>>
>>>> Where on earth did you find that? All Cat5 cable has 4 physical pairs.
>>>> Maybe you're getting mixed up with the Ethernet protocols running over
>>>> it, some of which (100baseTX and 1000baseTX) only used two of the four
>>>> pairs.
>>>
>>> Just in the process of swapping out 5 for 5e and after pulling one out
>>> I looked at the cable. It's labelled cat5e. I thought it seemed a bit
>>> thin.
>>> Looking a bit closer...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/cat5e.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> The yellow cable is clearly marked cat5e. I have never made up a
>>> network cable (not since coax), so I will have bought it like that.
>>>
>>> The blue cable is marked cat5 and is thicker and stiffer.
>>>
>>> Just sacrificed the yellow one:
>>>
>>> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/5emyarse.jpg
>>>
>>> Scary
>>
>> What's scary? I don't think the thickness of the wire has anything to do
>> with the difference between 5 and 5e.
>
> The so called 5e has only 4 wires. Somebody has stamped a 4 core cable
> with cat5e. That's what's scary. How many other people have bought false
> 5e cables and limited their network to 100Mb?
>
>

Didn't clock that. Weird.

--
/Simon

On 10/01/2022 12:03, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 19:00:35 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>
>> On 09/01/2022 15:11, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> El Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:41:12 +0000, YTC#1 escribió:
>>>
>>>> On 09/01/2022 12:06, ogden wrote:
>>>>> ogden wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>>>>> but I have cables that are marked cat5 4 pairs. Will they work at
>>>>>>> greater than 100Mb?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not reliably, no. You need Cat5e or better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doh. Disregard that. Bog standard Cat5 should be OK for 1000baseT
>>>>> over short distances. It's just a very long time since I've seen any.
>>>>
>>>> I can probably find some in my bits box if you are desparate.
>>>
>>>
>>> We've only had internet speeds of less than 100Mb up to now, so all my
>>> cables are old cat5. Back when I was in IT the standard was 10/100.
>>>
>> Yerbutt. Surely you wanted faster connection between devices within the
>> house?
>
> I just tested the link between this box and my server. It goes via a
> switch. I must try with something connected to a different router port.
>
> http://185.219.27.69:1961/test/netspeed.png
>
>
>
I always like to test with a realworld large file of a couple of gig

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/