dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25918
share rss forum feed


Tachikoma

@pacbell.net

General Wireless-N Question - Why am I only getting 65mbps?

Ok I've have a Netgear WNR834Bv2, I got it for free, otherwise I would've chosen something else. Anyways, it's actually been a good router, I'm running the latest version of DD-WRT as the firmware, since Netgears stock firmware is butt.

My problem lies with the N speed. On both my desktops with 3 different Draft-N 2.0 cards, I only get 65mbps. Period. The stupid thing is, on my Vostro 1400 laptop, with Dell's Draft-N 1505 chip, I get full 130mbps... what the heck?

The 2 best cards I have are a Linksys WMP110 and an Airlink AWLH6070, both are Draft 2.0 150N cards.

I've tried multiple configurations/changes, and anything I can think of but the speed still remains. I'm sticking with channel 1 btw, since it seems to give me the best signal with least interference. I also have to stick with the G/N mixed mode (130mbps max), since I have my PS3 and my wifes Wii on the same network.

Everything seems to work great, I have no issues streaming to my PS3 or any other device, but it just irks me that Vista or any other OS, states 65mbps and transfer speeds don't go above that. Heh.

Anyways, are the PCI cards the problem or is it the crappy router? Even if I switch the router to N-only (up to 270mbps) it only gives me 65mbps on the connection. Also, the "problem" persisted with the OEM firmware as well.



Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:4

I would love to know how you get 130Mbps on a N device.
The rated 200Mbps is marketing speak which combines both incoming and outgoing traffic. The best one could hope for is a theoretical 100Mbps without counting PC, wifi and environement losses. Typically I use a 1/3 rule and thus should expect around 66Mbps (makes your 65 sound just about right).



DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
kudos:2

I was thinking the same exact thing. WOW, consider yourself LUCKY!!


stevech0

join:2006-09-17
San Diego, CA

3 edits
reply to Tachikoma

don't confuse these

Wireless Air Link bit rate: with 11g: 54Mbps max. With 11n: same. These rates are achieved only with short distances, few walls, and ideal interference conditions.

With 11n AND channel-pair-bonding: 108Mbps. But channel pair bonding is (a) rude as it uses 2/3 of the entire shared band and (b) is often automatically disabled if there are any non-11n networks on any of the 12 affected channel numbers. So 11n is great for hermits.

Windows normally reports the Wireless Air Link in the WiFi status. As it will with an ethernet, say, 1Gbps connection but few PCs can push more than 75% of that speed.

A throughput test at the IP layer, which includes all wireless and TCP/IP overhead, will typically show the yield is a bit less than 1/2 of the Air Link rate. This is because of things like 802.11 is half-duplex, waits for an ACK from the receiving side before sending more (unless you use a particular proprietary/non-standard frame bursting), bits lost to error detection and correction overhead, retransmissions due to interference on same/adjacent channels, and so on.

The WiFi marketing guys prey on the gullible public. As do the lotteries.



Tachikoma

@sbcglobal.net
reply to Tachikoma

Hmm I guess the reason why I'd be achieving the full 130mbps (or at least, as Windows leads me to believe) is due to the fact that the Netgear router uses a rather cheap Broadcom chipset and really only works well with other Broadcom chipsets (my Dell Draft-N card in my laptop is a Broadcom 43XX chipset I believe). My Airlink uses a Ralink chipset and the Linksys also uses something different if memory serves.

So I think I'll sell the router and get something else. I've read some good things about TRENDnet TEW-633GR

»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···33156226

Any thoughts or suggestions? Obviously I don't hope to have mad speeds or anything, but I'd like something to at least communicate better than what's happening now. I'd rather it state 130mbps and only do ~60 or ~70 than have it state 65mbps and only be running around ~40 or something.



Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:4

I actually am recommending the zyxel NBG334W on sale at best buy free shipping for $29 plus it comes with a wifi adaptor as well. Its G though



Tachikoma

@pacbell.net

Well I wanted something at least a bit faster than G, with more range as well. My wife and I just bought a house.

I went back to Fry's and they had the Airlink AWLH6070 150N cards still on sale for $16.99 so I bought another since the first one has worked great. I also bought their Airlink AR670W 150N router, which also has a Ralink chipset, so I'll see how that works this evening. So both comps + my router will all be Ralink chipsets so I should be good to go.

I'll post back tomorrow (don't have internet at home yet).



DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
kudos:2

You could always get some 60gHz equipment and run 155mbit. HAHAHAHHAa jk



Tachikoma

@sbcglobal.net

Well the new router works great. It even has a few more options by default than the cheap Netgear one. The router was on sale as well for $19.99 haha. The new Airlink one allows me to use a wider band in b/g/n mixed mode, so I'm using 40Mhz, the Netgear one only allowed 20Mhz. Stats are as follows:

Netgear WNR834B Broadcom chipset w/ DD-WRT firmware
Desktop 1 (Vista x86 SP1) - 65mbps (Linksys WMP110 PCI w/ ??? Chipset)
Desktop 2 (XP x86 SP3) - 65mbps (Airlink AWLH6070 PCI w/ Ralink Chipset)
Vostro 1400 (Vista x86 SP1) - 130mbps (Dell 1505 w/ Broadcom Chipset)

Airlink AR670W Ralink Chipset w/ OEM firmware
Desktop 1 (Vista x86 SP1) - 150mbps (Airlink AWLH6070 PCI w/ Ralink Chipset)
Desktop 2 (XP x86 SP3) - 150mbps (Airlink AWLH6070 PCI w/ Ralink Chipset)
Vostro 1400 (Vista x86 SP1) - ~100mbps (Dell 1505 w/ Broadcom Chipset)

We can easily assume that actual data transfer most likely won't be solid at those speeds, but it's still nice that Windows is detecting the network at that specific speed. It would seem the broadcom chipset on the laptop obviously connects slower, even if it's not by much, meaning that most of the issues with Draft-N 2.0 technology does boil down to chipset incompatabilities of some sort. I'd simply just avoid Broadcom chipsets. They don't play well with Linux anyways.


Tikker_LoS

join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK

wait a sec

when you're quoting these speeds (150mbps) is this actual throughput you're seeing? or just when you mouse over the connection it says it's connected at 150mbps



Tachikoma

@pacbell.net

I thought I was pretty clear.


We can easily assume that actual data transfer most likely won't be solid at those speeds, but it's still nice that Windows is detecting the network at that specific speed.

When I check windows network manager, it states 150mbps. Actual speeds will obviously vary, due to the nature of wireless. So I'd assume average is around 75-100 at most when data is actually transferring. Either way, I'd say it's pretty safe to assume it's faster than 65mbps.

handisnacks

join:2008-07-21

^^^^ This is me btw, I'm Tachikoma. I completely forgot I had an account on here.



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
reply to Tachikoma

said by Tachikoma :

I thought I was pretty clear.


We can easily assume that actual data transfer most likely won't be solid at those speeds, but it's still nice that Windows is detecting the network at that specific speed.

When I check windows network manager, it states 150mbps. Actual speeds will obviously vary, due to the nature of wireless. So I'd assume average is around 75-100 at most when data is actually transferring. Either way, I'd say it's pretty safe to assume it's faster than 65mbps.
You rally need to quantify with a large file and a program that measures how fast it transfers and do the math and find out the real speed and not a guess.

handisnacks

join:2008-07-21

How large is "large?" What a dumb statement.

If you're thinking of something larger than a DVD5 (4.7GB) than that's pretty pointless. For me personally, I never transfer such large files over any "home" network. Not even when I had the standard 100mbps ethernet network at my old apartment. It's faster to dump things on to my USB 2.0 external hard drive. Our (newly purchased) house was built in 1964 and has a solid foundation, no crawl space, so running cable through it all for gigabit ethernet is not really an easy option. Likewise it's a truss roof, so there's no real attic area either. Hence why I chose this wireless method.

That being said, what program (preferably free) do people suggest to measure the actual transfer rates?



CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

1 edit

You ask for advice then say posts are dumb - brilliant. It is NOT about what you transfer - it is about getting a large file to get a better idea of speed when the pipe is saturated. If you use a small file you get no useful data. Small I would term to be up to 1 gig. Large would be as large as I could possibly get my hands on - the bigger the better.

You need to find out how fast your connection is - not what files you do transfer and where to - that is a totally different question and not relevant to your thread.


stevech0

join:2006-09-17
San Diego, CA

1 edit

I have a gig-E LAN at home. I tested with fancy tools and found that I could not get more than about 80% of 1Gbps on the LAN, and this was memory-to-memory, no disk I/O, and using two very fast PCs, big block transfers, etc. This was with pretty new/fast CPUs. I tried using a slower PC and the LAN speeds at gigE slowed a lot - due to Microsoft's overhead I think.

The reason for my gig-E is that we do a LOT of video viewing over the wired and wireless LAN, and some moving of recorded TV shows, each 2GB or so.

Unless you are moving a LOT of data on your home LAN, the wireless speeds above 11g's speeds are, IMO, not very important.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
reply to Tachikoma

Yeah, you'll likely see just a smallish gain with those higher link speeds. Probably low to mid 30Mbit/s range.

I'm running all dlink draft 2.0 N gear and get solid 300mbit link speeds. Tested throughput (with iperf) caps out at 60Mbit-75Mbit, which is 80% of the real throughput of wired 100mbit. It is also about 2x the real throughput of 802.11g, so its clearly better... just not WAY better

I'll still be dragging some cat6 to ship HD media around... too slow over any wireless.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


stevech0

join:2006-09-17
San Diego, CA

when you're done pulling cat6, I'll hire you do do my house.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

Lol... I don't think you can afford me. I know I'll wish I had paid someone else to do my place by the time I am done!


Mrtchuck

join:2001-03-28
Altamonte Springs, FL

2 edits
reply to Tachikoma

Nevermind...


Tikker_LoS

join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
reply to Tachikoma

said by Tachikoma :

I thought I was pretty clear...
So I'd assume average is around 75-100 at most when data is actually transferring. Either way, I'd say it's pretty safe to assume it's faster than 65mbps.
no, not at all really, but you've been given more answers than you have earned