Right cable for 100 foot run

[stonesmiith 0]

I ordered a Vivotek ip8362 camera, a PC, a D-Link DGS-1008P POE switch and a 100' cat5e cable for a system at home. I checked out the system before mounting the camera and it seemed to work fine. I had a hard time running the cable in and out of my attic and I pulled on it really hard a few times. After I finished running it, I got a power light, but I didn't get a data light on the switch. I brought the camera back inside and checked the system with a 7' cable I had and it worked fine. I went to Lowe's and bought a 100' cat5e cable. It seemed thinner, but I got it anyway. When I hooked it up, it would take a long time to connect and when it did, it would only show a faint ghost of a screen with no video. Even the 7' cable that works only shows a 100 mb connection. Should I just order a cat6 cable?

[buellwinkle 0]

Ethernet cat5 is good for 100m, so 100' is not a problem. Could be you pulled the plugs loose or got debris inside the connectors as you did this. Not the best idea to run cat5 with the connectors on. Typically I use solid copper wire and then attach the connectors last. Often, pre-made patch cables with connectors already on them are stranded wire, not sure it's as strong.

[Soundy 1]

Agreed, Cat5 vs Cat6 is not your problem here. Cat5e supports gigabit ethernet up to 100m (330'). The reason you're only getting a 100Mbit connection is because ALL surveillance IP cameras only have 10/100 ports (even the 29MP Avigilon Pro is only 10/100).

 

First thing to do: pull both 100' cables out and try connecting the camera WITHOUT the cable running through the attic. If it still doesn't work right, take both cables back to the store and ask them if they have a cable tester you can use on them, to confirm whether either cable was damaged.

 

If the camera DOES work right at that point, chances are your run through the attic is passing near a pretty substantial source of EMI. Even a little interference can cause some weird issues: one place I used to work, all the PCs on one wall of one room would refuse to get an IP from the DHCP server when running Windows... but if I booted from a DOS boot disk, DHCP worked fine and even let me successfully image the machines from the network. Eventually I tracked it down to a point where the conduit for the cables on that wall, crossed over a conduit carrying power to the lights: they'd followed best practices and crossed them at right angles without the two conduits touching, but there was still just enough interference to cause the DHCP errors: I used a small pry bar and pulled the network conduit an extra 1/4" away from the power run, and the problems went away permanently.

 

If you find both cables work fine when removed from the attic, then you have to plan your route better and be careful to avoid any sources of electrical noise.

[Numb-nuts 1]

I'm allergic to cats

[stonesmiith 0]

Thanks for your help, everyone. I'll borrow a cable tester and check my route through the attic.

[syscom 0]

Maybe some mistake in several comment. Cat5e can not up to 1000Mbs in 100m length.

[Visiocom 0]

Cat5e cable signal will drop if distance exceeds 90meters.

[Soundy 1]

Cat5e cable signal will drop if distance exceeds 90meters.

Maybe some mistake in several comment. Cat5e can not up to 1000Mbs in 100m length.

 

You are both incorrect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_5_cable#Maximum_cable_segment_length

 

According to the ANSI/TIA/EIA standard for category 5e copper cable (TIA/EIA 568-5-A), the maximum length for a cable segment is 100 meters (328 feet). If longer runs are required, the use of active hardware such as a repeater, or a switch, is necessary. The specifications for 10BASE-T networking specify a 100 metre length between active devices. This allows for 90 metres of fixed cabling, two connectors and two patch leads of 5 metres, one at each end.

 

Note that these are the *specifications* and wiring should meet this *minimum* performance; it doesn't mean the network will simply stop working at 101m. I've actually seen functional networks over longer runs than the spec (and even certified them with a Fluke cable certifier).

 

Not that any of this is relevant to the OP, as his runs are only 100 feet.

[jeromephone 6]

cable should be solid copper conductor. if you are putting on plugs they need to be specfic for that type of cable there are different plugs for stranded wire and for solid wire. The best solution with solid wire is to put data jacks on the cable and then use a properly rated patch cord (which will be stranded) to connect to your device.

[ssmith10pn 0]

I have some 400+ foot runs working with 5MP cameras on them

[jxk716 0]

I ordered a Vivotek ip8362 camera

 

You won't be bashful about posting day/night shots once everythign is worked out right?

[jeromephone 6]

whenever you exceed the 100 meter length on cable runs your device/computer may work but it can cause problems in other parts of your network. we have seen seemingly unrelated connectivity issues cropping up that were finally traced back to out of length cable runs on different devices.

[stonesmiith 0]

Well, I got another 100' cable from B&H Photo and it doesn't work either. It shows the exact same ghost of a screen as the one from Lowes. I can switch back to the 7' cable and everything is fine. Keep in mind, I'm talking 100 feet, not 100 meters. The camera has a built-in cable with a male RJ45, so I have to use a coupling to connect the camera to the cable. The coupling seems to be cheap plastic. I've tried two of the couplings. Could that be the point of failure?

[thewireguys 3]

Please post a screen shot this "ghosting" your talking about. This is not someone that would come from a faulty network cable.

[stonesmiith 0]

Here is the screen, first with the 7' cable and then with the 100' cable.

[thewireguys 3]

Have you run any ping tests? Please run a ping test on both cables and post the results

[stonesmiith 0]

I'm really confused now. When I do a ping test with the 100' cable, I don't get a timeout, but I get "destination unreachable" four times. When I use the 7' cable I get the normal reply < 1ms and TTL=64.

 

I finally got my hands on a basic cable tester and both cables test fine. Even the original cable that is still running through the attic tests fine.

[groovyman 0]

With the 100' cable when you do a ping test use -t after the IP address (example: ping 192.168.1.1 -t). That way the ping will be continuous. While it's running try wiggling the cable ends (both ends) and see if you start to get a reply. Also, disconnect/reconnect the cables. Do it slowly. Could be that on one end a good contact isn't being made even though it clicks.

 

A few years ago I had a guy in an office who bought some premade networking cable (50ft-100ft). These particular cables were very cheaply made. Very often the devices connected with these cables would lose network connectivity. The trick with these cables was to insert & stop just before it clicked. This seemed to make better contact with the pins in the network ports. I ended up stripping the cable and recrimping the connectors and they've been working fine ever since.

[SportPlumber 0]

If you are powering POE, try local power to the cam with the 100 foot cable. If the camera doesn't have external power connection, try a POE injector.

[empiresecuritycamera 0]

I second this, please try it

 

If you are powering POE, try local power to the cam with the 100 foot cable. If the camera doesn't have external power connection, try a POE injector.

[stonesmiith 0]

I hooked up local power and ran the 100' cable to my Linksys wireless router. The behavior was exactly the same as when I used the Dlink POE switch. The data light blinks intermittently and will not go solid. I did a ping -t and let it run for a bit. I got 9 "destination host unreachable", 3 "request timed out", 1 "reply", 8 more "request timed out", then 2 more "destination host unreachable".

 

If it matters, my equipment is cable modem connected to Linksys wireless router, then a patch cable from the Linksys to the Dlink POE switch.

 

I'm starting to wonder if I have a defective camera. Even when I use the short cable, I thought at 1080p and 30fps, it would be just like watching TV. But, even the best of the four feeds seems a bit grainy and movement has a slight delay.

[Razesdark 0]

I hooked up local power and ran the 100' cable to my Linksys wireless router. The behavior was exactly the same as when I used the Dlink POE switch. The data light blinks intermittently and will not go solid. I did a ping -t and let it run for a bit. I got 9 "destination host unreachable", 3 "request timed out", 1 "reply", 8 more "request timed out", then 2 more "destination host unreachable".

 

If it matters, my equipment is cable modem connected to Linksys wireless router, then a patch cable from the Linksys to the Dlink POE switch.

 

I'm starting to wonder if I have a defective camera. Even when I use the short cable, I thought at 1080p and 30fps, it would be just like watching TV. But, even the best of the four feeds seems a bit grainy and movement has a slight delay.

Sometimes you get a "destination host unreachable" when the ARP table hasnt been updated yet.

The 11 request time outs and the 1 reply do indicate that there's something wrong with the route to the camera and/or the camera itself.

You could try heavier packages when pinging with the short cable. This is done by using ping -t -l 5000 (for example)

See if you get timeouts as well when using a short cable but still a heavy load.

[stonesmiith 0]

When I hooked up the short cable this time, I had to reboot the POE switch before I could ping it at all. After that, I did the ping with the -l 5000. I got a reply every time. Here is the pattern:

 

time=1866ms

time=421ms

time=1ms

time=299ms

time=1ms

time=280ms

time=1ms

time=1011ms

time=1ms

time=1230ms

time=1ms

time=978ms

time=1ms

[groovyman 0]

When I hooked up the short cable this time, I had to reboot the POE switch before I could ping it at all. After that, I did the ping with the -l 5000. I got a reply every time. Here is the pattern:

 

time=1866ms

time=421ms

time=1ms

time=299ms

time=1ms

time=280ms

time=1ms

time=1011ms

time=1ms

time=1230ms

time=1ms

time=978ms

time=1ms

I think you may be right about having a defective camera. Each reply shouldn't be more than 2ms locally. The time it takes to receive a reply could most likely be the underlying cause of the grainy & dealyed playback you mentioned. If the reply from a ping takes that long the data transmission will not be smooth - you'll most likely get a lot of dropped data packets.

[Razesdark 0]

When I hooked up the short cable this time, I had to reboot the POE switch before I could ping it at all. After that, I did the ping with the -l 5000. I got a reply every time. Here is the pattern:

 

time=1866ms

[snip]

time=978ms

time=1ms

I think you may be right about having a defective camera. Each reply shouldn't be more than 2ms locally. The time it takes to receive a reply could most likely be the underlying cause of the grainy & dealyed playback you mentioned. If the reply from a ping takes that long the data transmission will not be smooth - you'll most likely get a lot of dropped data packets.

I agree, with times like that, there's certainly something wrong with either the switch (if you still had that one between your camera and your PC) or the camera itself.

You shouldn't go above 10ms at most! when doing a ping with such short cable length.