]]>
I have a friend using these copper wire plug doogads, and he says they're fantastic. However, advice taken on board, and I'll research a lot more before I buy.
Unfortunately, I'm on an unlimited up to 24mbs connection. Connecting through the wireless at full speed only gives me 6
connecting through Ethernet gives me 16 (though today it's been only 10 for some reason)I really wanted to avoid having cables all over the house. Damn.
Statistics: Posted by Mole — Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:09 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Peltz — Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:23 am
]]>
If you want max speed lay down some cat5. If you're industrious you can put it in the walls and make it look really professional. If you can't do that for whatever reason, either run cables all over the ground (shiny would murder me if I did that) or just go wireless.
You're correct, wireless N is 'coming soon'. But coming soon could mean it's years away so don't get too excited. There are some things you can do to tune your performance a bit.
Signal strength: if it's not maxed out, try repositioning the router. Set it higher up so it's more likely to get a signal. There are two antennas on it... they're not for sending and receiving or whatever, they're actually to help with signal bounce (when the router receives your signal twice or more due to it bouncing off of surfaces). Make sure the two antennas are vertical... perpendicular to your broadcasting device. Make sure they're facing your computer so the two antennas are roughly the same distance. Move the router and your broadcasting device as far away from power sources and other sources of electromagnetic interference as you can. Try to position the devices so you have as little interference between the two as possible... sheet rock ok, air conditioning unit bad. Also make sure there aren't any other wireless routers in your area operating on the same channel. If you see other devices, try switching channels.
Following that, if your wireless router and/or wireless nic are low quality that can have a big impact as well. You can try upgrading to something better if you feel like spending the cash.
If you REALLY wanna go all out, you could use an 802.11g router for one device and buy an 802.11a router for a second device. 802.11g runs in the 2.4ghz spectrum and 802.11a works in the 5mhz spectrum so they won't interfere with each other... each pc would have a dedicated 54mbps interface (assuming only 2 devices).
Along the same lines, you could have multiple g (or a) routers all running on different channels. That gets a lot more complicated though.
I think I'll stop now before I spend all your money.Statistics: Posted by Satis — Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:06 am
]]>
Needless to say, I was unaware just how much wireless sucked.
I'm looking in to getting some of those networking "wall plugs" that send the signal through the copper wiring in your house instead - but I don't know how compatible they are with multiple devices. I'd need to be able to support at least 3. If you know anything about that, that'd be great.
There is a question. I assume that by "Multiple Wireless Devices" You are including the clients aswell? We were testing today, and once we turned on Pev's PC, it slowed right down to 24mbps - which fits with what you say.
Am I correct in thinking that there's a new standard of wireless networking coming out? WirelessN or something weird like that.
Thanks Mr. Tech-Guru!
Statistics: Posted by Mole — Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:15 pm
]]>
First a definition of terms... 54mbps is 54 mega-BITS per second. Not megabytes. I don't think you were making that mistake but I've seen it enough times to make sure.
54mbps = 6.75 MB/sec.Next, 802.11g uses specific bands of the wireless spectrum. I won't go into the intricacies, but let's just say that if you have multiple wireless devices, they can't be talking at the same time. The reason is they'd be overriding each other's signals and causing general havoc. 802.11g uses something called Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD).
What it means is if two devices try to transmit at the same time there's a mechanism to notice it. All devices do a freeze and random standoff period, then try to transmit again.It works but it's very inefficient. Exact efficiency numbers are hard to find, but under optimal efficiency it's 50% or less. So 54mbps just became 27mbps. The more clients the less efficiency.
So, anyway, to make a long story short, slow throughput isn't all that unusual. Depending on how you define slow. If you're getting 40-50% efficiency, you're doing great. If you're getting 5.5mbps, that's like 10% efficiency, but if you have alot of wireless devices, lots of RF interference, are broadcasting through walls or other signal-reducing structures, or anything else that might cause the signal to be low and splotchy, it's not necessarily all that weird.
Any questions?
Statistics: Posted by Satis — Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:59 pm
]]>
I've had a few problems with mine with the "Actual Speed" being connected at on 5.5mbs per second.
What my ISP suggested (I'm using there router, as I thought it was an ISP problem at first) is to lower the amount of connections my bittorrent client can make. I thought this was bull shit, because I figured that should only affect my Wlan speed whilst I'm actually using it.
Anyway, the question is based around this:
The speed at which my computer is connected to the router is a pretty damn constant 54mbs. I'm assuming the 'Actual Speed' is different and is based on the amount of data the router it self can handle at once, and thus is divided by all the computers on the network and all open (maybe physical?) connections they have.
Is this true? Is there a difference between the speed at which my wireless is connect, and this 'actual speed'?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Statistics: Posted by Mole — Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:08 am
]]>