StraightEdge
@aol.com | Is there a difference in performance when using longer cord
Is there a difference in performance when using a 100Ft Ethernet cord instead've a 50Ft?
Thanks.  |
|
shdesigns
Powered By Infinite Improbabilty Drive
Premium
join:2000-12-01
Stone Mountain, GA | Should not be. Ethernet is good up to 328'. |
|
jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS | reply to StraightEdge
It is going to take an extra 66 nano seconds to go the extra 50 feet, but you will never know.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| said by jimbopalmer  :It is going to take an extra 66 nano seconds to go the extra 50 feet, but you will never know. Hard core gamers will argue about that. 
An just to nit-pick shouldn't that be 132 ns to account for round trip time?
/tom |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to StraightEdge
Bandwidth and latency for all intents and purposes is the same between those two cable lengths as already pointed out. A longer cable or coiling up a cable increases the chance of signal interference, and that could reduce overall performance, but even then that generally isn't an issue. |
|
jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
 ·Windjammer Cable
| reply to tschmidt
said by tschmidt :And just to nit-pick shouldn't that be 132 nanoseconds to account for round trip time? Only in a protocol with round trips, if you are streaming video or doing Voice over IP, you may have a lot of one way packets.
Either way, that will be downed out by the delay in the NICs, switches, and routers.
Really good switches have latency in the 10s of microseconds, the Cisco 6509 has 15 microsecond latency, best case, it would be easy to hide 132 nanoseconds in 15 microseconds.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
