麻豆区
Customer Review
- Reviewed in Canada on December 17, 2023Well, there isn't much to say about these except they do work as expected. Unlike some others that I've come across that are made of metal [alloy] shell, these seem slightly cheaper in comparison, at least from what I can readily see. The RJ45 connector fits reasonably snuggly inside the coupler and no issues are observed during the tests (by no means exhaustive though). With that being said, their longevity remains to be seen, as always.
From the tests run below (there are a lot more to it but this is the short version), you can see that there were minimal (if any) differences in terms of ICMP response time before and after the inline couplers were being used. I've also tested one with 3 couplers connected in series via short (3ft Cat7) cables and no issues were observed either, which is good.
### Without coupler
10.172.97.250 : [0], 84 bytes, 1.04 ms (1.06 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [1], 84 bytes, 1 ms (1.04 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [2], 84 bytes, 0.95 ms (1.01 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [3], 84 bytes, 0.96 ms (1.00 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [4], 84 bytes, 1.05 ms (1.02 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [5], 84 bytes, 0.84 ms (0.99 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [6], 84 bytes, 1 ms (0.99 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [7], 84 bytes, 1.17 ms (1.02 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [8], 84 bytes, 0.92 ms (1.01 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [9], 84 bytes, 1.16 ms (1.02 avg, 0% loss)
# With coupler
10.172.97.250 : [38], 84 bytes,0.96 ms (1.02 avg, 43% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [39], 84 bytes,0.95 ms (1.01 avg, 42% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [40], 84 bytes,0.87 ms (1.01 avg, 41% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [41], 84 bytes,1.13 ms (1.01 avg, 40% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [42], 84 bytes,0.89 ms (1.01 avg, 39% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [43], 84 bytes,0.82 ms (1.00 avg, 38% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [44], 84 bytes,1.03 ms (1.01 avg, 37% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [45], 84 bytes,1 ms (1.01 avg, 36% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [46], 84 bytes,0.96 ms (1.00 avg, 36% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [47], 84 bytes,1.48 ms (1.02 avg, 35% loss)
^C
10.172.97.250 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 48/31/35%, min/avg/max = 0.71/1.01/1.48
1 targets
1 alive
0 unreachable
0 unknown addresses
0 timeouts (waiting for response)
48 ICMP Echos sent
31 ICMP Echo Replies received
0 other ICMP received
0.72 ms (min round trip time)
1.02 ms (avg round trip time)
1.50 ms (max round trip time)
47.547 sec (elapsed real time)
###
鈮 Value
All things considered, these appear to be decent Cat7 RJ45 inline couplers that work as expected without issues although their longevity remains to be seen; however, the overall quality (although not exactly bad) isn't something to write home about either. hey are somewhat reasonably priced at $18 (for 6x pack rated for Cat 7) for what they provide and their overall build quality, usability, and performance. Your mileage might vary.
Well, there isn't much to say about these except they do work as expected. Unlike some others that I've come across that are made of metal [alloy] shell, these seem slightly cheaper in comparison, at least from what I can readily see. The RJ45 connector fits reasonably snuggly inside the coupler and no issues are observed during the tests (by no means exhaustive though). With that being said, their longevity remains to be seen, as always.Reasonably decent RJ45 inline couplers, seem well-constructed, plastic shell, work fine otherwise
Reviewed in Canada on December 17, 2023
From the tests run below (there are a lot more to it but this is the short version), you can see that there were minimal (if any) differences in terms of ICMP response time before and after the inline couplers were being used. I've also tested one with 3 couplers connected in series via short (3ft Cat7) cables and no issues were observed either, which is good.
### Without coupler
10.172.97.250 : [0], 84 bytes, 1.04 ms (1.06 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [1], 84 bytes, 1 ms (1.04 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [2], 84 bytes, 0.95 ms (1.01 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [3], 84 bytes, 0.96 ms (1.00 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [4], 84 bytes, 1.05 ms (1.02 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [5], 84 bytes, 0.84 ms (0.99 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [6], 84 bytes, 1 ms (0.99 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [7], 84 bytes, 1.17 ms (1.02 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [8], 84 bytes, 0.92 ms (1.01 avg, 0% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [9], 84 bytes, 1.16 ms (1.02 avg, 0% loss)
# With coupler
10.172.97.250 : [38], 84 bytes,0.96 ms (1.02 avg, 43% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [39], 84 bytes,0.95 ms (1.01 avg, 42% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [40], 84 bytes,0.87 ms (1.01 avg, 41% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [41], 84 bytes,1.13 ms (1.01 avg, 40% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [42], 84 bytes,0.89 ms (1.01 avg, 39% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [43], 84 bytes,0.82 ms (1.00 avg, 38% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [44], 84 bytes,1.03 ms (1.01 avg, 37% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [45], 84 bytes,1 ms (1.01 avg, 36% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [46], 84 bytes,0.96 ms (1.00 avg, 36% loss)
10.172.97.250 : [47], 84 bytes,1.48 ms (1.02 avg, 35% loss)
^C
10.172.97.250 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 48/31/35%, min/avg/max = 0.71/1.01/1.48
1 targets
1 alive
0 unreachable
0 unknown addresses
0 timeouts (waiting for response)
48 ICMP Echos sent
31 ICMP Echo Replies received
0 other ICMP received
0.72 ms (min round trip time)
1.02 ms (avg round trip time)
1.50 ms (max round trip time)
47.547 sec (elapsed real time)
###
鈮 Value
All things considered, these appear to be decent Cat7 RJ45 inline couplers that work as expected without issues although their longevity remains to be seen; however, the overall quality (although not exactly bad) isn't something to write home about either. hey are somewhat reasonably priced at $18 (for 6x pack rated for Cat 7) for what they provide and their overall build quality, usability, and performance. Your mileage might vary.Images in this review
