CAT7 cables worth it?

[Aquinus]

Interesting router, if you have a wireless device it can transfer (theoretically) at 300Mb on both channels but gets bottlenecked at the ports.

300Mb is actually 150/150. It's doesn't run "full duplex" (I think that term is incorrect for wireless but the idea is the same). Also that is at full signal strength and more often then not you have other networks nearby that add interference. The only time I've seen the full speed kick in is on my 5ghz wireless (no other 5ghz networks are around me,) with my laptop practically in line of sight of the router (within 25ft).

I suspect the router can't handle full wide 40mhz channel speeds, and even if it did, you're not losing much due to overhead.

 

[Kreij]

According to the cisco specs on the router, it's 300 + 300. That would seem to indicate 300MB on both bands.
That being said, the ports will still not give you over 100Mb/port.
He could get multiple NICs and load balance/trunk them together, but I doubt the router will do that.

 

[Aquinus]

According to the cisco specs on the router, it's 300 300. That would seem to indicate 300MB on both bands.

That's 150/150 per freqency range on both 5ghz and 2.4ghz, I have an E4200 that has 300 for 2.4 and 450 for 5ghz. (3x3 MIMO for 5ghz, and 3x2 MIMO for 2.4ghz). Each direction on one channel at full speed is rated for something like 72Mbit on 802.11n, so 150 is a rounded theoretical number. That is why with each extra channel you get increments of 150, such as 150, 300, and 450, but that is still max throughput and you typically don't get it.

 

[Sinzia]

I use Cat7 when I'm going from my router up to the top floor of the house where there's a switch for my office. I use cat7 because it wasn't much more expensive, and it has the really nice metal reinforcements on the rj-45's.

I don't -need- cat7, but I did want the best cable for the job, since its in-wall. Otherwise, a good cat5e is more than adequate for home users.

 

[theeldest]

We have two of these big ones and 20 of the size of your picture. We have a BIG facility in chattanooga.

he he he. I think I win this contest. The building at this site has a few hundred racks. We have a couple more buildings at this site, also with a few hundred racks.

A second site the next town over has a few hundred more racks.

Then we have sites in Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Texas.

I only get 17 racks that I get to play with, though. :-(

 

[Aquinus]

he he he. I think I win this contest. The building at this site has a few hundred racks. We have a couple more buildings at this site, also with a few hundred racks.

A second site the next town over has a few hundred more racks.

Then we have sites in Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Texas.

I only get 17 racks that I get to play with, though. :-(

This isn't a contest? Just because you have a ton of rack servers to play with doesn't mean that something lesser (like my little 7 server rack at work,) doesn't suit our purposes. For what I do and the company I work for, that would be overkill and a waste of money for hardware, space, and cooling for servers that we wouldn't be using or need to use. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[Delta6326]

...I would go with Cat 7 go big or go home...

Unless im looking at it wrong Cat 7 is not expensive....
Rosewill RCNC-11045 15 ft. Cat 7 Red Shielded Twis...

 

[Aquinus]

...I would go with Cat 7 go big or go home...

Unless im looking at it wrong Cat 7 is not expensive....
Rosewill RCNC-11045 15 ft. Cat 7 Red Shielded Twis...

If the current ethernet cable fails or if she needs another one, then I would say if you want to spend the money go for it, but there is no point in replacing a cable that already works.

 

[theeldest]

but there is no point in replacing a cable that already works.

+1