Hello everyone!
I hope you are all doing well!
A brief description of my issue:
My router is located in the living room. To get the best possible internet connection on my PC, which is in the bedroom, I use a 20-meter (65 feet) Ethernet cable that runs across the entire apartment. Of course, this does not look good and is also dangerous (tripping hazard).
Therefore, I want to route the Ethernet cable along the baseboards. This looks better because the cable is no longer visible, and there is no longer any risk of someone tripping over it.
Laying the cable is not a problem, but I have a different question.
I would like the Ethernet cable to retract automatically along the baseboard in the bedroom when it is not plugged in anywhere. Similar to how a vacuum cleaner’s power cord retracts.
I hope you can help me with this, and I wish you a nice day.
Best regards
I hope you are all doing well!
A brief description of my issue:
My router is located in the living room. To get the best possible internet connection on my PC, which is in the bedroom, I use a 20-meter (65 feet) Ethernet cable that runs across the entire apartment. Of course, this does not look good and is also dangerous (tripping hazard).
Therefore, I want to route the Ethernet cable along the baseboards. This looks better because the cable is no longer visible, and there is no longer any risk of someone tripping over it.
Laying the cable is not a problem, but I have a different question.
I would like the Ethernet cable to retract automatically along the baseboard in the bedroom when it is not plugged in anywhere. Similar to how a vacuum cleaner’s power cord retracts.
I hope you can help me with this, and I wish you a nice day.
Best regards
Werkstudent schrieb:
Good day,
Thanks for the tips! I have a Fritzbox 7590. The 5 GHz Wi-Fi is already running at my home. But I prefer a LAN cable for my PC.
I’m thinking of extending the LAN connection from the Fritzbox so that it slightly sticks out of the power strip, and then use a shorter LAN cable in the room.
Do you know if this will reduce the speed?
I currently have a 100,000 connection, and if I get 70,000 to 90,000, I would be quite satisfied. That should work fine. As mentioned, you can also terminate the cable at a wall socket and then use a short patch cable to connect to your PC.
If your Wi-Fi range is currently problematic, try using a 2.4 GHz network instead of the 5 GHz one.
The internet isn’t everything. If I have a NAS, I’m very concerned about whether I can reach 300, 400, or 900 Mbit.
Even though this might seem nitpicky, the statement is not correct. Just measure the throughput of your cables yourself, for example using iperf.
Student worker, run installation cables from the switch to the bedroom, each with its own outlet. If you don’t want to see anything in the bedroom, just put away the patch cable. I’d say everything else is nonsense, and you’ll regret it eventually.
Domski schrieb:
LAN at home == 100 Mbit or 1000 Mbit.
There are no intermediate speeds. Either it works or it doesn’t.
Even though this might seem nitpicky, the statement is not correct. Just measure the throughput of your cables yourself, for example using iperf.
Student worker, run installation cables from the switch to the bedroom, each with its own outlet. If you don’t want to see anything in the bedroom, just put away the patch cable. I’d say everything else is nonsense, and you’ll regret it eventually.
DNL schrieb:
The internet isn't everything. If I have a NAS, I'm really concerned about whether I get 300, 400, or 900 Mbit.
Even if this is a bit nitpicky: the statement isn't correct.
Just measure the throughput of your connections, for example with iperf.If you start doing that, please also subtract the protocol overhead from HTTP, SMB, or whatever... ;-)
This goes beyond what most users need here. iperf measures the net data rate at Layer 3, not the gross data rate on the medium (cable, wireless, fiber...). However, the speed shown on the device (and the port) refers to the speed of the medium, which is what an average user can relate to.
@Werkstudent
5 GHz Wi-Fi is significantly more prone to interference, while 2.4 GHz is unfortunately much more crowded. However, especially if your area isn’t densely populated, it’s worth trying. If you only care about speed and not latency, Wi-Fi is a real option without drawbacks. I would, however, recommend the more user-friendly mesh system from Ubiquiti called Amplifi. Setup takes about 5 minutes on your phone, you don’t need any extra devices, and it’s easy to expand.
5 GHz Wi-Fi is significantly more prone to interference, while 2.4 GHz is unfortunately much more crowded. However, especially if your area isn’t densely populated, it’s worth trying. If you only care about speed and not latency, Wi-Fi is a real option without drawbacks. I would, however, recommend the more user-friendly mesh system from Ubiquiti called Amplifi. Setup takes about 5 minutes on your phone, you don’t need any extra devices, and it’s easy to expand.
You don’t choose mesh networks voluntarily. I completely don’t understand why they are hyped as a miracle solution everywhere.
Especially since in this case it’s not about coverage at all, but about bandwidth. He’s talking about a 20m (65 feet) cable, which means the direct distance is even shorter. 5 GHz Wi-Fi is the first reasonable attempt here, as long as it’s not about the last millisecond of latency.
Especially since in this case it’s not about coverage at all, but about bandwidth. He’s talking about a 20m (65 feet) cable, which means the direct distance is even shorter. 5 GHz Wi-Fi is the first reasonable attempt here, as long as it’s not about the last millisecond of latency.
Similar topics