5e versus 6. what cable?

[azazel1024]

I need to buy some new networking cable for a few runs. I've been using cat5e all along in wiring my house (Cables 2 Go). I am debating getting cat6 this time around. All of the runs I am about to do are easy to get to, to replace, but I might be using it on some runs that aren't going to be easy to replace in the future.

5e is supposed to be good for around 45m runs for 10 gigabit and my longest is 30m with most in the 10-20m range. It makes me a little nervous to keep using it with future proofing since the longest run I've seen anyone actually test 10GbE on is around 30ft, half the length of my medium runs.

However, 5e is about 60% the price of 6 and its also a lot easier to work with since it is a lot more flexible.

Am I just setting myself up for future failure or should I really be fine.

Anyone ever test longer runs of 10GbE on 5e?

 

[88keys]

I think it's debatable. I generally try to think in terms of scalability so I would put up the extra cash for a Cat6 variant if I had it available.

But 10GbE networking equipment is expensive and who knows when the prices will come down for consumers. Perhaps by then Cat 6 will also be cheaper too.

So long as you don't fasten your cables to studs in the wall or reseal your holes (if you're going through a fire block), it's generally easy to pull new cables through by just attaching them to the old ones.

 

[Red Squirrel]

If you're buying go with 6. It's not like it's all that much more expensive. If you run across extremely cheap, or free cat5e that will work too though but if you're paying full price may as well go with cat6.

People will try to say it's more expensive to install but it's not THAT much harder to work with. Heck, I use it for alarm points, because I have it on hand. Could use telco frame wire but most alarm points require 3 wires so it's easier to just use cat6.

 

[JackMDS]

It really down to real amount of money spent.

If you install CAT6 and the total expense is Bellow thousand $$ it silly to install CAT5e to save few hundreds (or less) $$.

 

[Batmeat]

The difference is really in the price. Both pairs will run gigabit speeds. Pairing of the cables inside cat 6 was to run gigabit over 4 pair while 5e was over two pair. I believe that's the only difference. Stick with 5e. Anyone else is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, because I havent' looked much into it since Cat6 became available (which was years ago).

 

[cmetz]

I need to buy some new networking cable for a few runs. I've been using cat5e all along in wiring my house (Cables 2 Go). I am debating getting cat6 this time around. All of the runs I am about to do are easy to get to, to replace, but I might be using it on some runs that aren't going to be easy to replace in the future.

You should usually get the best cable you can, because the capital expenduture for the cable is less expensive than the value of the man time installing and terminating the cable. Unless, of course, you're seriously cost constrained.

cat6 is better than 5e and not much more expensive, especially if you shop around. cat6a is better than cat6, unfortunately it is more expensive but again, compare it to the cost of labor, and compare to the cost and headache of having to upgrade later.

In theory, cat5e is all you need for gigabit, but cat6 and 6a give you more signal quality headroom, which is still helpful/a good thing. For 10G, you need 6 (< 55m) or 6a (<100m). I'm sure that 10GBaseT gear will get better as time goes on, but, for now, I would not recommend pushing against the stated limits for 10G, I don't think there's a lot of headroom. And remember that odds are very good that you're not complying with the 6/6a bend radius and termination specs if you're doing it yourself, and remember that you're probably not using a pro-grade cable scanner to certify it.

 

[azazel1024]

I ended up going with Cat6 C2G 500ft along with new RJ-45s and keystone jacks. The Keystone Jacks I've been using Cat6 as I go along, but I ran out like I did with cable. The ends, I've been using 5e ends and that's all I have laying around. At least they are dirt cheap for 100.

I would have gone with 1000ft, since Monoprice cat6 1,000ft is only like $20 more than 500ft of C2G, but my wife didn't want me storing an even larger box of cable that wouldn't be used for years. Realistically for the reno work this spring, I am looking at maybe using 150ft of cable total and then I probably don't need anything, except making patch cables, for a few years. I am going to do nylon string between the boxes and my basement though in case I need to pull something else in the future.

Though I don't think that would work for a lot of my locations because in hindsite, even though I could probably pull Cat6 to some of my current 5e locations, 6a likely would not fit to most/all of them because of the significantly increased size and rigidity of the cabling.

I did do a BOATLOAD of research on 5e, 6 and 6a last night. It looks like, first off, the distance rating on the cables is generally in a "6 around 1" testing configuration, so the test cable is surrounded by 6 more bundled around it carrying their own traffic, to create maximum alien crosstalk. Then they are tested out to 100m, or whatever distance they'll handle. That is why 5e and 6 are not rated to 100m, they can't handle alien crosstalk sufficient to handle 10GbE out to 100m in a 6 around 1 configuration. 5e can kind of sort of maybe handle it to 45m and 6 to around 55m in such a configuration. 6 can handle it out to 100m with mitigation (shielded Cat6 or remove alien cross talk, IE don't bundle it with other cables or reduce bundling).

I am fuzzy based on the tests that I was reading, because 5e was glossed over heavily. It seems like the 45m rating was either with alien crosstalk mitigation already, or it may have been bundled it would work to that, but it appears that 5e will not take a 10GbE signal to 100m, even with mitigation. That much was clear.

Also interesting Cat7 is basically just Cat6a with twisted pair shielding plus shielding for the overall cable. It and 7a have no official rating for capacity.

In addition, Cat6a is rated to at least 30m for 40GBASE-t, but it might carry it further. The rating body (IEEE?) did not want to rate ANY cable further because they didn't want to potentially increase cabling requirements about Cat6a. They basically wanted to certify a "top of the rack" and "end of the row" 40GbE setup, which Cat6a supposedly can handle (up to 30m) for 40GBASE-t switch uplinks.

What will be required for 100BASE-t, no fuzzy idea. If it ever comes, probably Cat7/7a with all of the shielding they have (I think the difference between 7 and 7a is just in the size of the conductors, as 7a has all the same kind of tighter twists that 6a/7 have, along with a twisted core and the shielding of 7, but it is apparently rated for 650MHz over the 500MHz rating of 7...so I am guessing maybe 20/22AWG or something conductors instead of 23/24AWG?)

It does make me a little sad that 5GBASE-t was discussed, thought of and then went straight from 1GBASE-t to 10GBASE-t. I don't know the differences in Tx/Rx, coding, etc between the two, but Cat6 was supposedly able to do 100m of 5GBASE-t, in addition it probably would have meant cheaper and less power hungry PHYs as well as overall NICs and switches.

For a home/SOHO use, it seems like that would make a lot more sense than 10GBASE-t, unless of course the power/PHY requirements were really no different than 10GBASE-t, and it is just a small change in the Tx/Rx standards to go from 5GBASE-t to 10GBASE-t, along with more stringent cabling requirements (my guess is, everything is the same, except higher frequency over the wire). I've been thinking in the near term until 10GBASE-t is remotely affordable for me (probably under $400 for all of the networking gear, a switch with at least two ports, plus a pair of NICs for my desktop and server), I might go with a couple of quad port GBASE-t cards in both, it would get me ~450MB/sec between the machines with SMB multichannel, though I need the HDD array to handle it. What I am eyeing up in the near term to expand my storage would only net me ~350MB/sec max and probably more like 300MB/sec average throughput on a 2 disk RAID0 array. Maybe in a couple of years.