Plugable debuts new USB-C 2.5Gbps Ethernet Adapter

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2020
Plugable has launched a brand new USB-C Ethernet Adapter, allowing users to upgrade their desktops and laptops with faster wired connection speeds up to 2.5 gigabits per second.

Plugable announces release of new 2.5Gbps Ethernet Adapter


The new adapter supports wired speeds of up to 2.5 times faster than the 1 gigabit per second standard when used with Cat 5e cabling and appropriate network infrastructure. This means that users can leverage existing cables commonly found in existing networks in conjunction with new switches and perhaps routers to more than double the performance of a local network compared to traditional Gigabit Ethernet.

Its plug-and-play design doesn't require intensive set-up, saving users plenty of time and frustration. The adapter is backward compatible with earlier networking standards such as Gigabit (10/100/1000) networks.

It also supports auto-negotiation and is compatible with both full-duplex and half-duplex networks. It connects to a computer via USB-C but also boasts a USB 3.2 Gen 1 USB-A adapter for increased flexibility. The adapter is compatible with Windows 10, 8.x, and 7, and macOS 10.7 and above.

The Plugable 2.5 Gigabit USB Ethernet Adapter is available for purchase at Amazon for $39.99, with a $10 discount offered using promo code 25ETHERNET from 1PM eastern time on Tuesday. It is currently available in the US, UK, EU, Australia, Canada, and Japan.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    How do I exactly get the $10 launch discount? it showing up at regular price. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 8
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,270administrator
    How do I exactly get the $10 launch discount? it showing up at regular price. 
    We'll talk to Plugable about it.

    Edit - there you go, coupon code added to the article.
    edited March 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 8
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,904member
    fyi: in my experience, even between the fastest Macs connected via 10GbE, a single "scp" file transfer tops out at about 260 MB/s or 2.1 Gbps. To make more use of 10GbE bandwidth, multiple simultaneous streams must be run, and even then the max. throughput is about half of the theoretical bandwidth.
    In other words, this dongle is likely to provide perfectly adequate service and much better throughput than 1GbE at a very reasonable price and with little added heft. 10 GbE dongles are far more expensive, very heavy, and also consume a lot of power.

    edited March 2020 watto_cobrawozwoz
  • Reply 4 of 8
    How do I exactly get the $10 launch discount? it showing up at regular price. 
    We'll talk to Plugable about it.

    Edit - there you go, coupon code added to the article.
    Thanks  :)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 8
    BigDannBigDann Posts: 66member
    cpsro said:
    fyi: in my experience, even between the fastest Macs connected via 10GbE, a single "scp" file transfer tops out at about 260 MB/s or 2.1 Gbps. To make more use of 10GbE bandwidth, multiple simultaneous streams must be run, and even then the max. throughput is about half of the theoretical bandwidth.
    In other words, this dongle is likely to provide perfectly adequate service and much better throughput than 1GbE at a very reasonable price and with little added heft. 10 GbE dongles are far more expensive, very heavy, and also consume a lot of power.

    The issue is the limitations of the drive and any heavy processing which is competing with the file transfer. And you still have the limits of the Thunderbolt3/USB-C services. Its still faster than WiFi ;-}
    edited March 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 8
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,904member
    BigDann said:
    cpsro said:
    fyi: in my experience, even between the fastest Macs connected via 10GbE, a single "scp" file transfer tops out at about 260 MB/s or 2.1 Gbps. To make more use of 10GbE bandwidth, multiple simultaneous streams must be run, and even then the max. throughput is about half of the theoretical bandwidth.
    In other words, this dongle is likely to provide perfectly adequate service and much better throughput than 1GbE at a very reasonable price and with little added heft. 10 GbE dongles are far more expensive, very heavy, and also consume a lot of power.

    The issue is the limitations of the drive and any heavy processing which is competing with the file transfer. And you still have the limits of the Thunderbolt3/USB-C services. Its still faster than WiFi ;-}
    Sorry, it's not the drive and it's not any limitation of Thunderbolt 3 (which is much faster than 10GbE). The internal SSD drives can read and write >10X the "scp" network throughput. The Macs are unloaded.  And the 10GbE adapters are built-in anyway. scp has computational overhead though that taxes even the fastest processors available.
    Let us know when you've tried it rather than shooting from the hip!
    rundhvid
  • Reply 7 of 8
    PylonsPylons Posts: 32member
    cpsro said:
    BigDann said:
    cpsro said:
    fyi: in my experience, even between the fastest Macs connected via 10GbE, a single "scp" file transfer tops out at about 260 MB/s or 2.1 Gbps. To make more use of 10GbE bandwidth, multiple simultaneous streams must be run, and even then the max. throughput is about half of the theoretical bandwidth.
    In other words, this dongle is likely to provide perfectly adequate service and much better throughput than 1GbE at a very reasonable price and with little added heft. 10 GbE dongles are far more expensive, very heavy, and also consume a lot of power.

    The issue is the limitations of the drive and any heavy processing which is competing with the file transfer. And you still have the limits of the Thunderbolt3/USB-C services. Its still faster than WiFi ;-}
    Sorry, it's not the drive and it's not any limitation of Thunderbolt 3 (which is much faster than 10GbE). The internal SSD drives can read and write >10X the "scp" network throughput. The Macs are unloaded.  And the 10GbE adapters are built-in anyway. scp has computational overhead though that taxes even the fastest processors available.
    Let us know when you've tried it rather than shooting from the hip!
    First, check that there is nothing else that limits your speed. Run a test with e.g. iperf in the terminal.
    If that is also limited, start checking your network settings, e.g. jumbo frame size.
    If iperf manages to get above 9 Gbps but scp won't, it may have to be due to a demanding encryption.
    You can change encryption (cipher) by adding e.g. -c arcfour,blowfish-cbc to your scp command (to change defaults edit your .ssh config file, more info here).
  • Reply 8 of 8
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,904member
    Pylons said:
    cpsro said:
    First, check that there is nothing else that limits your speed. Run a test with e.g. iperf in the terminal.
    If that is also limited, start checking your network settings, e.g. jumbo frame size.
    If iperf manages to get above 9 Gbps but scp won't, it may have to be due to a demanding encryption.
    You can change encryption (cipher) by adding e.g. -c arcfour,blowfish-cbc to your scp command (to change defaults edit your .ssh config file, more info here).
    Through several tests, with the system otherwise quiescent, scp pegged at 100% CPU and pushing only 260 MB/s over 10GbE, scp looks processor-bound. iperf reports 9.3 Gbps (Mac Pro -> MBP16 with 10GbE TB3 dock).
    Yes, a cipher with less overhead speeds things up. Arcfour isn't available, but using optional aes128-ctr, a single scp can shove 670 MB/s over the wire. Two of these jobs simultaneously achieve about 1030 GB/s combined.
    edited March 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.