Q for Network bods

[gingerjedi]

I was under the impression that if you used a splitter on a cat5 you'd need one at the other end to use two switch ports?

I've just been made to look a fool by insisting a single splitter wont work but... it does.

How is this????

[doodab]

I was under the impression that if you used a splitter on a cat5 you'd need one at the other end to use two switch ports?

I've just been made to look a fool by insisting a single splitter wont work but... it does.

How is this????

It's a passive hub essentially.

[gingerjedi]

It's a passive hub essentially.

So why when I google 'cat5 splitters' every explanation I find says you need one on either end?

The switch port must be configured to do this, either that or both devices are running half duplex?

[doodab]

So why when I google 'cat5 splitters' every explanation I find says you need one on either end?

The switch port must be configured to do this, either that or both devices are running half duplex?

I suppose it would depend on the wiring, if it literally "splits" the connection then I would expect the ethernet collision detection mechanism to do it's thing. If it's some sort of gadget designed to use the unused wires in the cable to carry a second set of signals then you probably would need two of them.

[VectraMan]

I suppose it would depend on the wiring, if it literally "splits" the connection then I would expect the ethernet collision detection mechanism to do it's thing. If it's some sort of gadget designed to use the unused wires in the cable to carry a second set of signals then you probably would need two of them.

My understanding was a splitter was exactly the latter, and so you need a matching pair otherwise the second connection wouldn't be connected to anything.

But I suppose it's possible that a switch might be wired in a way that it was splitter-aware, i.e. detected that the extra wires were being used and effectively gave you two ports per physical port.

[gingerjedi]

I suppose it would depend on the wiring, if it literally "splits" the connection then I would expect the ethernet collision detection mechanism to do it's thing. If it's some sort of gadget designed to use the unused wires in the cable to carry a second set of signals then you probably would need two of them.

It's standard cat5 that goes into a single port on a 48 port Cisco switch, the other end is 99p maplin style splitter with a thin client and a laptop connected which I wrongly said wouldn't work.

[doodab]

It's standard cat5 that goes into a single port on a 48 port Cisco switch, the other end is 99p maplin style splitter with a thin client and a laptop connected which I wrongly said wouldn't work.

Do they both work at the same time? You would expect one to work (the one connected to the right conductors) regardless of what sort of gadget it was.

[doodab]

Btw it looks like i was talking bollocks about collision detection, that will only work if it's half duplex.

[VectraMan]

Btw it looks like i was talking bollocks about collision detection, that will only work if it's half duplex.

WHS.

Does that even work with modern ethernet equipment? I remember the fun of stringing together a long cable linking together 30 PCs on two different floors, and even more I remember the fun of trying to find the one dodgy connection that made the whole lot go down. But that was then. Surely these days nobody uses half-duplex, and never has multiple devices attached to one wire.

[gingerjedi]

They do work at the same time, witchcraft.