![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
quickymart:[snip]Tested with a borrowed cable and got 300 over ethernet, so the cable has probably done its dash.
It's there in the very first post. The OP tried a new cable and it fixed the problem.
Bit too much for me to muck around with, I'll just replace the cable, as I'd still need a new one anyway 👍
I feel like every post in this thread has missed that you said you tested with a borrowed cable, so just go ahead and replace the cable. Also maybe pick up a couple of spares for if you need 'em in future, always handy to have a few lying around.
Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.
quickymart:
Yep, planning on getting a new cable in the next week or so. Will probably keep this one as a spare or something.
If the cable is faulty, destroy it and get 2 new cables so you have a spare. A faulty item is not a spare item its just wasted troubleshooting time for the next person who finds it.
Wombat1: The point I am trying to make is that another cat 6 cable may also not work. The op did not mention what type of cable the replacement cable is. Maybe a cat 5e which is working correctly, another cat 6 cable may not work.
I'm super curious how your thought process has led to this conclusion - CAT 6 having better signal properties than CAT 5e, I can't think of a single instance where the lower noise levels would force a worse link speed. Occam's razor, the simplest answer is the best.
Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.
Some of those super-cheap cables includes with routers etc. only include 2 pairs (I guess to save on copper cost) so can only ever do 100mbps....
Speedtest results with a brand new network cable (in the exact same ports - modem and PC - as per previously):
👍
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |