Are you using cat7?

[lightingjack]

I've been reading A LOT about cat7 and basically is not standardized by TIA - yet-  is anybody using it for real? I've spoke with some network professional that claims cat7 is just cat6 or cat6a with a different packing or jacket 

[RGProductions]

1 minute ago, lightingjack said:

I've been reading A LOT about cat7 and basically is not standardized by TIA - yet-  is anybody using it for real? I've spoke with some network professional that claims cat7 is just cat6 or cat6a with a different packing or jacket 

CAT7 is IMO useless. By the time we will use it as consumers we will probably use an optical standard.

[lightingjack]

1 minute ago, RGProductions said:

CAT7 is IMO useless. By the time we will use it as consumers we will probably use an optical standard.

Do you have any experience with it?

[RGProductions]

1 minute ago, lightingjack said:

Do you have any experience with it?

No, because I honestly thing consumers have no real use for it. unless both ends runs off all m.2 storage, your drives will be the bottleneck in the transfer rate, not the cable standard. I could go on about this.

[lightingjack]

Just now, RGProductions said:

No, because I honestly thing consumers have no real use for it. unless both ends runs off all m.2 storage, your drives will be the bottleneck in the transfer rate, not the cable standard. I could go on about this.

Well I would actually love if you would go on about it haha. I'm trying to figured out why people is buying these cables when they aren't standard yet. 

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, lightingjack said:

Well I would actually love if you would go on about it haha. I'm trying to figured out why people is buying these cables when they aren't standard yet. 

Only beneficial for internal networks where the cost/performance makes any difference, which is rare. Other than that it would be just to learn about it and be ahead of the curve. 

[lightingjack]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Only beneficial for internal networks where the cost/performance makes any difference, which is rare. Other than that it would be just to learn about it and be ahead of the curve. 

But how could you figured out that? How would you test the cables? TIA haven't throw any standard to compare.

[Enderman]

I bought some cat7 cables, which are probably just cat 6 with some extra shielding.

Just using them for regular 1000Mbps connection so no difference to me.

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, lightingjack said:

But how could you figured out that? How would you test the cables? TIA haven't throw any standard to compare.

You just test the speed throughput against cat6/e standards. TIA doesnt need to have standards yet to see a difference in speed. There are some cat7 cables on the market regardless. The only thing the TIA standard does is give companies a minimum rating to meet. 

[lightingjack]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

You just test the speed throughput against cat6/e standards. TIA doesnt need to have standards yet to see a difference in speed. There are some cat7 cables on the market regardless. The only thing the TIA standard does is give companies a minimum rating to meet. 

That's right but like Enderman is saying, it seems they are just cat6 cables 

 

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I bought some cat7 cables, which are probably just cat 6 with some extra shielding.

 

I would love to hear from some network designer/manager that can confirm that standard. Yet this feedback has been great 

[RGProductions]

13 minutes ago, lightingjack said:

Well I would actually love if you would go on about it haha. I'm trying to figured out why people is buying these cables when they aren't standard yet. 

Well let me start by saying, unless you have 10 gigabit internet (only available in very few places to consumers, and when it is it usually costs far too much) second, for internal transfers the speed of the drive is the bottleneck most of the time because the cable supports 10 gigabit but the fastest SATA connection only supports 6 gigabit. In order to break this bottleneck you would need to use M.2 storage, and not just storage that uses the slot, but storage that uses the full 32 gigabit standard, which is very expensive. Even if you were to use full 32 gigabit drives on both ends Than at that point you might as well jump for optical or high end SFP+ gear, because you obviously have a lot of money to throw at the problem. I think people are buying it for the reason that they either see the higher number and/or the higher price and automatically think that more expensive=faster but apple has taught us that that is not true. If I were in the market I would just use CAT 6A

Edited August 1, 2016 by RGProductions
Making it even longer!

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, lightingjack said:

That's right but like Enderman is saying, it seems they are just cat6 cables 

 

I would love to hear from some network designer/manager that can confirm that standard. Yet this feedback has been great 

I'm a network Admin and can say we havent used them because there doesnt seem to be any benefit. The one I see on new egg says its only compliant to cat6 standards. The only difference is the shielding which may help in latency for extremely long cable runs, such as a cable from the basement to a 5 story buildings roof. Beyond that there doesnt seem to be any reason to even consider cat7 since as you say there is no standard to meet. 

[Vengeance_K1ng]

I'm still using CAT 4, Ohhh the sadness.

[lightingjack]

4 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

I think people are buying it for the reason that they either see the higher number and/or the higher price and automatically think that more expensive=faster

That's my thought exactly. 

[lightingjack]

3 minutes ago, Vengeance_K1ng said:

I'm still using CAT 4, Ohhh the sadness.

Who needs standards upgrades, right? Hahaha

[lightingjack]

5 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I'm a network Admin and can say we havent used them because there doesnt seem to be any benefit. The one I see on new egg says its only compliant to cat6 standards. The only difference is the shielding which may help in latency for extremely long cable runs, such as a cable from the basement to a 5 story buildings roof. Beyond that there doesnt seem to be any reason to even consider cat7 since as you say there is no standard to meet. 

But like you said, you probably can do the same with cat6a 

[RGProductions]

4 minutes ago, Vengeance_K1ng said:

I'm still using CAT 4, Ohhh the sadness.

I still use WIFI and I am not even meeting half the speeds CAT4 can do. But going to get either a cat6 or CAT6a connection soon

[lightingjack]

16 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I'm a network Admin and can say we havent used them because there doesnt seem to be any benefit. The one I see on new egg says its only compliant to cat6 standards. The only difference is the shielding which may help in latency for extremely long cable runs, such as a cable from the basement to a 5 story buildings roof. Beyond that there doesnt seem to be any reason to even consider cat7 since as you say there is no standard to meet. 

Let me ask you something, as a network admin you tend to work with T568A or T568B or both? I don't know if there's a favorite among you guys 

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, lightingjack said:

Let me ask you something, as a network admin you tend to work with T568A or T568B or both? I don't know if there's a favorite among you guys 

I've always used B when making cables, as have most companies Ive hired for cable runs. it doesnt really make a difference though. 

[VicBar]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

I've always used B when making cables, as have most companies Ive hired for cable runs. it doesnt really make a difference though. 

But in a big network, is there ever a time when having an A-B cable is the norm or even convenient? (crossover cables?)

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, VicBar said:

But in a big network, is there ever a time when having an A-B cable is the norm or even convenient? (crossover cables?)

Most modern equipment can use crossover cables as straight-through as they will change themselves electrically automatically. So really it depends on your equipment, but its standard to do straight-through. You never know what could be added to your network later on. There are some items i work with that require a crossover cable for setup, but afterward dont care what cable I use.  

[handymanshandle]

44 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

CAT7 is IMO useless. By the time we will use it as consumers we will probably use an optical standard.

I also think that fibre optic network cables will eventually replace the current consumer level networking. I think in some places fibre optic networking is starting to become more common. 

cat5e and cat6 is good enough for most people. Longer runs cat6 is probably a better bet.

[RGProductions]

Just now, wcreek said:

I also think that fibre optic network cables will eventually replace the current consumer level networking. I think in some places fibre optic networking is starting to become more common. 

cat5e and cat6 is good enough for most people. Longer runs cat6 is probably a better bet.

Yep, I agree, I made a point about that earlier that I think you will agree with.

[lightingjack]

 

13 minutes ago, VicBar said:

But in a big network, is there ever a time when having an A-B cable is the norm or even convenient? (crossover cables?)

I actually had to look for some information about this. I don't know if this helps to clarify this but it helped me when I tried to understand what standard to use.  https://beyondtech.us/blogs/beyond-blog/difference-t568a-t568b 

[leadeater]

I have seen hospitals installing Cat 7 (Cat 6a S/FTP) but I still question the need. Blanket installing cables that are screened and foiled (S/FTP) causes more issues and is just all round harder to work with. These types of cables really should only be used when needed.