Reliable transfer but unreliable auto-negotiation?The maximum length of CAT6 for intranet network?No auto-negotiation for X520 with 10G direct attach cable?Is collisions between fastlink pulses possible during auto-negotiation?What's the point of auto-sensing 10/100 Mbit/s Ethernet?Why auto negotiation cannot be disabled on Fiber PortDo I need Auto-Negotiation in 1000BASE-X Ethernet if I have a point-to-point link always at 1 Gbps?Does coaxial cable transfer data both ways?Capture auto-negotiation ability flagsVerifying 802.3 auto negotiationCan bad cabling affect the overall network?How to debug L1 Auto negotiation issues?

If a massive object like Jupiter flew past the Earth how close would it need to come to pull people off of the surface?

What does the behaviour of water on the skin of an aircraft in flight tell us?

Orientable with respect to complex cobordism?

Is the capacitor drawn or wired wrongly?

Strange math syntax in old basic listing

what's the equivalent of helper in LWC?

Are there mythical creatures in the world of Game of Thrones?

Explain Ant-Man's "not it" scene from Avengers: Endgame

How to properly maintain eye contact with people that have distinctive facial features?

California: "For quality assurance, this phone call is being recorded"

Pros and cons of writing a book review?

Modern approach to radio buttons

Bringing Food from Hometown for Out-of-Town Interview?

How to write a vulnerable moment without it seeming cliche or mushy?

What's the most polite way to tell a manager "shut up and let me work"?

Recording the inputs of a command and producing a list of them later on

Why use water tanks from a retired Space Shuttle?

Can I ask a publisher for a paper that I need for reviewing

Accidentally cashed a check twice

What is the most important characteristic of New Weird as a genre?

Have powerful mythological heroes ever run away or been deeply afraid?

How can I offer a test ride while selling a bike?

What does it mean by "d-ism of Leibniz" and "dotage of Newton" in simple English?

Can you please explain this joke: "I'm going bananas is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house"?



Reliable transfer but unreliable auto-negotiation?


The maximum length of CAT6 for intranet network?No auto-negotiation for X520 with 10G direct attach cable?Is collisions between fastlink pulses possible during auto-negotiation?What's the point of auto-sensing 10/100 Mbit/s Ethernet?Why auto negotiation cannot be disabled on Fiber PortDo I need Auto-Negotiation in 1000BASE-X Ethernet if I have a point-to-point link always at 1 Gbps?Does coaxial cable transfer data both ways?Capture auto-negotiation ability flagsVerifying 802.3 auto negotiationCan bad cabling affect the overall network?How to debug L1 Auto negotiation issues?













2















I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.



I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?



Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?



I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.










share|improve this question









New contributor



G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    2















    I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.



    I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?



    Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?



    I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.










    share|improve this question









    New contributor



    G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      2












      2








      2








      I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.



      I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?



      Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?



      I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor



      G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I have two servers, the first with a built-in and add-on 10gbit port, and the second with built-in gbit and add-on 10gbit (Syba AQC107), communicating through a feed-through rated for gigabit communication (Cat6A shielded cabling totaling ~50ft, unshielded couplers). Thus, I don't expect full 10gbit communication to work. However, the two built-in ports communicate reliably and I get full gigabit transfer speeds. When one of the Syba ports is connected at either end, the autonegotiation is unreliable, and usually falls back to 100Mbit. However, when it does succeed at gbit autonegotiation, it does get full gigabit transfer speeds. When both Syba cards are plugged in, no link is detected at all. Connecting the Syba cards directly (50ft cable, no feedthrough) results in 10gbit throughput.



      I infer from this that the current constraint is the Syba port's autonegotiation capability, and not the physical cabling. Thus, I hope that I may be able to at least get 2.5Gbit transfer speeds with a different NIC, but I don't have any way to know a priori that a given card will be suitable without the impedance, line filtering, etc. of the port. Is this simply an instance of money=power? Does anyone have brand suggestions that might prove fruitful?



      Related, how is it possible that these cards can reliably get gigabit throughput, but frequently (~80% of time) fail to autonegotiate gigabit speeds? Is autonegotiation typically handled by a different DSP?



      I am using ethtool for NIC status and iperf for transfer rates.







      layer1 cable cabling 10gbase autonegotiation






      share|improve this question









      New contributor



      G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor



      G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited May 24 at 2:55









      Ron Maupin

      69.5k1372133




      69.5k1372133






      New contributor



      G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      asked May 24 at 1:36









      G. HallG. Hall

      111




      111




      New contributor



      G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      New contributor




      G. Hall is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.



          There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:




          If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
          connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
          damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
          result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
          shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
          component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
          well as properly installed and maintained.



          An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
          practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
          grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
          Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
          depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
          high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
          minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
          shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
          magnetic-field interference.




          It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.



          Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.



          Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.




          *This answer explains the primary test suite.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

            – G. Hall
            May 24 at 18:42











          • If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

            – Ron Maupin
            May 24 at 18:45











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "496"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59365%2freliable-transfer-but-unreliable-auto-negotiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.



          There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:




          If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
          connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
          damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
          result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
          shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
          component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
          well as properly installed and maintained.



          An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
          practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
          grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
          Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
          depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
          high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
          minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
          shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
          magnetic-field interference.




          It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.



          Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.



          Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.




          *This answer explains the primary test suite.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

            – G. Hall
            May 24 at 18:42











          • If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

            – Ron Maupin
            May 24 at 18:45















          3














          You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.



          There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:




          If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
          connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
          damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
          result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
          shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
          component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
          well as properly installed and maintained.



          An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
          practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
          grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
          Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
          depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
          high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
          minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
          shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
          magnetic-field interference.




          It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.



          Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.



          Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.




          *This answer explains the primary test suite.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

            – G. Hall
            May 24 at 18:42











          • If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

            – Ron Maupin
            May 24 at 18:45













          3












          3








          3







          You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.



          There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:




          If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
          connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
          damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
          result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
          shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
          component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
          well as properly installed and maintained.



          An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
          practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
          grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
          Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
          depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
          high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
          minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
          shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
          magnetic-field interference.




          It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.



          Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.



          Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.




          *This answer explains the primary test suite.






          share|improve this answer















          You simply cannot mix shielded and unshielded parts in a link. The shield only works if it continuous end-to-end and properly grounded on both ends. The actual wires in shielded cabling cannot meet specifications without working shielding. Having unshielded connectors means that the shielding is broken on the link, and it is not properly grounded. Improperly grounded links with shielded cable cannot meet the required cable specifications.



          There are documents that explain things for you. For example, Shielded and unshielded twisted-pair cable revisited:




          If STP cable is combined with improperly shielded connectors,
          connecting hardware or outlets, or if the foil shield itself is
          damaged, overall signal quality will be degraded. This, in turn, can
          result in degraded emission and immunity performance. Therefore, for a
          shielded cabling system to totally reduce interference, every
          component within that system must be fully and seamlessly shielded, as
          well as properly installed and maintained.



          An STP cabling system also requires good grounding and earthing
          practices because of the presence of the shield. An improperly
          grounded system can be a primary source of emissions and interference.
          Whether this ground is at one end or both ends of the cable run
          depends on the frequency at which a given application is running. For
          high-frequency signals, an STP cabling system must be grounded, at
          minimum, at both ends of the cable run, and it must be continuous. A
          shield grounded at only one end is not effective against
          magnetic-field interference.




          It seems that the installation was poorly and incorrectly done. For the devices to negotiate at 1000Base-T (1 Gbps), all four pairs must be working correctly. Intermittent negotiation to 100Base-TX (100 Mbps) tells me that at least one of the pairs has an intermittent connection.



          Your cable installer should have run the Category-6a test suite* and provided a report for each cable run. That seems unlikely because he did not correctly install the cabling (mixing shielded and unshielded parts, which cannot meet the Category-6a test suite, and probably would not even pass the Category-5e test suite). You should demand that he return to fix the installation, and if he is a certified installer, you should report the problems to BICSI.



          Category-6 and Category-6a cabling is something with which even experienced installers have problems. It is critical that the finished installation be tested with a proper (expensive, several thousand dollar) cable tester, and that you receive reports for each cable run.




          *This answer explains the primary test suite.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 24 at 4:09

























          answered May 24 at 2:56









          Ron MaupinRon Maupin

          69.5k1372133




          69.5k1372133












          • Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

            – G. Hall
            May 24 at 18:42











          • If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

            – Ron Maupin
            May 24 at 18:45

















          • Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

            – G. Hall
            May 24 at 18:42











          • If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

            – Ron Maupin
            May 24 at 18:45
















          Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

          – G. Hall
          May 24 at 18:42





          Thank you for the information, it didn't occur to me that higher frequencies would necessitate grounding both ends. This is a self-install which passes through a continuously rotating joint which is unfortunately unshielded internally. However, I can try grounding the ends of the main STP runs (the unshielded portion is ~2ft long). I am sure any competent engineer would cringe at the configuration, but unfortunately we have no ability to change the feedthrough. We're just trying to squeeze out as much performance as we can.

          – G. Hall
          May 24 at 18:42













          If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

          – Ron Maupin
          May 24 at 18:45





          If you cannot guarantee the shield, then you should use unshielded cable, Poorly installed shielded cable will not perform as well as unshielded cable. The ungrounded shield will cause problems.

          – Ron Maupin
          May 24 at 18:45










          G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          G. Hall is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














          Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59365%2freliable-transfer-but-unreliable-auto-negotiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

          Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

          Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?