10 Gigabit Won't Work

[dragontamer5788]

I tried connecting the computers directly with a cable and get the same results.

Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure if it'd change anything. But still, its good to at least remove the switch as a potential issue. Now we know that its either the cable, the NIC, the motherboard, or the CPU. I don't know if we can make your test setup any simpler, so this is as "easy" as it will ever get.

The CPU / Motherboard could be an old version of DMI which may have less bandwidth than you expect. Motherboard -> CPU connections are surprisingly complicated. Your CPU's "high bandwidth" direct-PCIe x16 port is probably taken up by your GPU. The remaining x4 or x1 ports may have less bandwidth than you expect.

The NIC could be the issue. You're pretty much in charge of quality control yourself when buying used.

I doubt its the cable, given how short your cable is already. (The shorter the cable, the easier it is to send a high quality signal). But its still worth swapping cables just in case.

 

[newtekie1]

And as a tip for you and others; don't pay extra for Cat 7 over Cat 6A, as there is no Cat 7 standard for RJ45(8P8C). Cat 7 is a special standard for datacenters using TERA or GG45 plugs. Whenever you see "Cat 7" terminated with RJ45 plugs, these are just Cat 6/6A cables with a markup. Cat 6A is comparable to the specs of Cat 7 for datacenters. The successor of Cat 6A is Cat 8.1, but that only becomes relevant with 25Gbps Ethernet.

Yes, there is a Cat 7 standard for 8P8C, it just uses the GG45 plug which is backwards compatible with RJ45. There are no Cat 7 cables terminated with RJ45, they are terminated with GG45, otherwise they can't be called Cat 7. However, even if you cut the GG45 connector off and put a RJ45 on the end, the cable itself is still better than Cat 6/A cables because each pair is shielded and the whole cable is shielded with another layer of shielding on top of that.

I agree that it isn't worth spending extra on Cat 7 cables unless you have a very specific reason that needs Cat 7. However, Cat 7 cables are started to get pretty cheap too, you can get 10ft Cat 7 cables for under $5 each these days. So it's not like it's a huge waste of money if someone buys Cat 7 over Cat 6/A.

 

[efikkan]

Yes, there is a Cat 7 standard for 8P8C, it just uses the GG45 plug which is backwards compatible with RJ45. There are no Cat 7 cables terminated with RJ45, they are terminated with GG45, otherwise they can't be called Cat 7.

I think you missed my point. GG45 is certainly backwards compatible with RJ45. But if you find pre-terminated "Cat 7" cables with RJ45, which many stores do sell, they are not Cat 7. In the cases I've seen, they are just Cat 6/6A cables marked as "Cat 7".

However, even if you cut the GG45 connector off and put a RJ45 on the end, the cable itself is still better than Cat 6/A cables because each pair is shielded and the whole cable is shielded with another layer of shielding on top of that.

I agree that it isn't worth spending extra on Cat 7 cables unless you have a very specific reason that needs Cat 7. However, Cat 7 cables are started to get pretty cheap too, you can get 10ft Cat 7 cables for under $5 each these days. So it's not like it's a huge waste of money if someone buys Cat 7 over Cat 6/A.

It depends if you're comparing apples to apples or not, i.e. comparing a minimum spec U/UTP Cat 6A or S/FTP or F/FTP Cat 6A to Cat 7 (with the same wire gauge). To really find out whether the cable is truly better you need to dive into the data sheets, and hopefully they are tested with comparable test parameters. They may very well be the same cable with a different certification, or have a very insignificant difference. I would argue there is not much point in buying a cable certified for 600 MHz vs. 500 MHz., unless you find one that's certified for much higher speeds than that.

Edit:
I also want to emphasize that the Ethernet standards are very conservative, so when 10GBASE-T allows up to 55m on Cat 6 and 100m on Cat 6A, that has taken into account a noisy server environment with hundreds of these cables next to each other. So unless you plan to coil your network cables around a fridge or run it past an induction cooktop, using a good Cat 6A cable that exceeds the minimum requirements will be plenty good for 10G in any home, and possibly shorter runs of 25G in the future.
It's far more important that cables are properly terminated and not physically damaged, than going beyond Cat 6A.

 

[R-T-B]

Another good point is CAT6A is shielded and for full benefits, requires grounding one end. It's best to just buy CAT6 and forget it, as without grounding you won't exceed that performance anyhow.

 

[newtekie1]

I think you missed my point. GG45 is certainly backwards compatible with RJ45. But if you find pre-terminated "Cat 7" cables with RJ45, which many stores do sell, they are not Cat 7. In the cases I've seen, they are just Cat 6/6A cables marked as "Cat 7".

I have yet to come across Cat 7 cables pre-terminated with RJ45, they all have been GG45. I guess for simplicity they might be marked as RJ45 in the store just not confuse people on compatibility.

But if they are literally Cat 6/A cables, as in marking on the cable says Cat 6/A, being sold as Cat 7 than the store is lying. The cables themselves are different, with Cat 7 cabling being better.

It depends if you're comparing apples to apples or not, i.e. comparing a minimum spec U/UTP Cat 6A or S/FTP or F/FTP Cat 6A to Cat 7 (with the same wire gauge). To really find out whether the cable is truly better you need to dive into the data sheets, and hopefully they are tested with comparable test parameters. They may very well be the same cable with a different certification, or have a very insignificant difference. I would argue there is not much point in buying a cable certified for 600 MHz vs. 500 MHz., unless you find one that's certified for much higher speeds than that.

No, you don't have to dive into the datasheets. Even Cat 6A S/FTP cable is worse than Cat 7 cabling. Cat 6A S/FTP only has a single full cable shielding. Cat 7 has the pairs shielded as well as a full cable shielding.

 

[Bill_Bright]

the store is lying.

Or more likely being scammed by the cable maker or the store's wholesaler too.

 

[efikkan]

I have yet to come across Cat 7 cables pre-terminated with RJ45, they all have been GG45. I guess for simplicity they might be marked as RJ45 in the store just not confuse people on compatibility.

The once that I've seen clearly has RJ45 plugs. And you don't have to look hard to find them, Amazon, Newegg, Ebay etc.

No, you don't have to dive into the datasheets. Even Cat 6A S/FTP cable is worse than Cat 7 cabling. Cat 6A S/FTP only has a single full cable shielding. Cat 7 has the pairs shielded as well as a full cable shielding.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are 100% wrong on this.
FTP means there is a foil wrapping each pair. S/FTP has two layers of shielding, a foil on each pair and a braid wrapping the cable. F/FTP has two layers of foil.
See here.
Cat 6A exists as both S/FTP and F/FTP cables (plus additional variants), I have actually seen it, and I'm about to install 3-400m of it in a house of a relative.

-----

Back on topic:
@Eric_Cartman:
Any luck with your new cables?
I've been trying to find good reviews of TEG-10GECT, to try to find out what kind of sustained speeds can be expected from it, but with no luck.
I think this note is worth reading on Amazon. It seems like some(?) revisions of it may be using a Aquantia chip, so you may check out those drivers.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Just a heads up, again. Cat 7 is not an Ethernet standard. Cat 6A is as far as it goes for 10Gbps, don't waste your money in anything above that, as you'll reap zero benefit.

 

[newtekie1]

Just a heads up, again. Cat 7 is not an Ethernet standard. Cat 6A is as far as it goes for 10Gbps, don't waste your money in anything above that, as you'll reap zero benefit.

Again, it's not like they are that expensive. Hell, they can be cheaper than Cat6/A. Like I said, 10ft CAT7 cables can be had on Amazon for under $5. I think at this point we are all making a fuss over what amounts to pennies in price difference. If someone wants to get Cat7, let them. It's not like the cables are twice the price anymore.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

I never thought me buying Cat 7 cables would cause such a fuss.

You all act like I spent huge amounts of money on these cables.

You all need to calm down they were actually cheaper than 6a cables on Amazon.

Any luck with your new cables?
I've been trying to find good reviews of TEG-10GECT, to try to find out what kind of sustained speeds can be expected from it, but with no luck.
I think this note is worth reading on Amazon. It seems like some(?) revisions of it may be using a Aquantia chip, so you may check out those drivers.

The new cables did not help at all.

I can't get over about 3G even with Cat 7 cables.

Yes these network cards are Aquantia based.

I know that because when I go into device manager the driver tab says the driver provider is Aquantia.

It says that for every driver I install.

So I'm back to taking suggestions on what I can do to get 10G working properly.

 

[efikkan]

I know that because when I go into device manager the driver tab says the driver provider is Aquantia.

It says that for every driver I install.

So I'm back to taking suggestions on what I can do to get 10G working properly.

So, have you tried various drivers from Aquantia, other than those from Trendnet?

 

[Eric_Cartman]

So, have you tried various drivers from Aquantia, other than those from Trendnet?

Yes.

I've tried every driver I could find that would install on the card.

 

[R-T-B]

Unfortunately other than cables I can't think of much that could be wrong.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

I finally found the answer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/9wi4vx
Iperf now reports close enough to 10G.

I even tried it with the Cat5e cables and it worked with those as well.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Did you update the firmware on your cards? I don't know which version your cards shipped with, but there were a lot of early firmware issues.

Public Driver Downloads | QLogic Fibre Channel HBAs and FastLinQ Ethernet adapters and controllers - Marvell

Download Marvell drivers by Platform or Part Number for Marvell QLogic Fibre Channel HBA and Marvell FastLinQ Ethernet adapters and controllers.

www.marvell.com

Also, how do you explain that I get around 8Gbps on my two cards not using the -P 8 option?

With it, I get slightly better speeds than you still. You seem to have very inconsistent speeds as well.

On the plus side, doing -P 8 shows that jumbo frames might have a small performance improvement.

 

[Solaris17]

So what was the actual answer? That thread is just a mess of ideas. Were you doing teaming? That link may not help future people.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

Did you update the firmware on your cards? I don't know which version your cards shipped with, but there were a lot of early firmware issues.

Public Driver Downloads | QLogic Fibre Channel HBAs and FastLinQ Ethernet adapters and controllers - Marvell

Download Marvell drivers by Platform or Part Number for Marvell QLogic Fibre Channel HBA and Marvell FastLinQ Ethernet adapters and controllers.

www.marvell.com

Also, how do you explain that I get around 8Gbps on my two cards not using the -P 8 option?

With it, I get slightly better speeds than you still. You seem to have very inconsistent speeds as well.

View attachment 198476

On the plus side, doing -P 8 shows that jumbo frames might have a small performance improvement.

View attachment 198479

Yes I updated the firmware on my cards they were only one version older than the newest.

I don't know why you get higher speeds without the -P 8 command than I do.

From reading iperf on Windows just seems to be inconsistent on what speed it gives over 1G without the -P.

My inconsistant speed doesn't bother me the server is being used by others in the house.

So what was the actual answer? That thread is just a mess of ideas. Were you doing teaming? That link may not help future people.

The answer was to add the -P 8 in the iperf command.

 

[Athlonite]

I have store bought 6ft Cat5e cables.

I read Cat5e can handle 10G up to 40m or something like that.

So the cables shouldn't be a problem.

CAT5e will not handle 10G upto any length it just can't cope with the really high frequency used by 10G I suggest you buy a couple of new CAT6A or better cables. CAT5e cables a frequency of only 350MHz that's not enough for 10G which requires 600MHz or better CAT6A CAT7

that also looks like it's the same chipset as I have on the TP-Link TX401X it's the AQC107 so I'd check out Marvel's site for the latest driver and there should also be a firmware update program aswell use both or just grab these