dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
7652
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to LowInfoVoter

Premium Member

to LowInfoVoter

Re: your network's maximum wireless (802.11g) download speed?


fucking screenshot
Stop bitching about fucking screenshots. It doesn't provide anything a 10byte sentence cannot.

Btw, I'm seeing the same 35-40% of link speed throughput with 802.11g.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to LowInfoVoter

Premium Member

to LowInfoVoter
Test via iperf on both ends of the link, and post those results. That will show the maximum speed you can push bits over your wired or wireless link, without regard for CPU or disk bottlenecks, if any.

It's not necessary, anyway, since you can just read the tables of tests done by review sites.

»www.smallnetbuilder.com/ ··· sentials

That shows (and my experience concurs) max 802.11 speeds of 20-23 Mbps (or, 2-2.5MB/sec shown as "copy" speed in Windows)

clarknova
join:2010-02-23
Grande Prairie, AB

1 edit

clarknova to LowInfoVoter

Member

to LowInfoVoter
»www.oreillynet.com/pub/a ··· l?page=1

The above-linked article explains in technical terms why you cannot do better than 27 mbps on 802.11a/g unless using proprietary extensions. I have personally seen about 26 mbps using Tomato. Sorry, no screenshot for now as I've switched to n (and I'm not at home anyway).

LowInfoVoter
Vote early, vote often, vote democrat.
join:2007-11-19
USA

LowInfoVoter to JohnInSJ

Member

to JohnInSJ
said by cramer:

Stop bitching about fucking screenshots.

if it pisses you off, why post? don't get mad at me because you can't read or stay on topic. i couldn't have been more clear in my request, and the answers couldn't have been further from the mark.

you know what's easier than providing a 10byte sentence? not posting at all if you're unhappy with the request.
said by JohnInSJ:

Test via iperf on both ends of the link, and post those results.

at present, i'm more interested in seeing what other people are getting via screenshots in the real world, so it's unlikely i'll post that information (however seemingly related) as it's not on my topic. however, out of curiosity, what do you mean by "both ends of the link"? do you mean test from win7 thru wireless to server? and then from server thru wireless to win7? if so, i can't because the server isn't windows and is all GUI frontend regardless of what its backend is.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

to use iPerf to test the maximum wireless speed, you need two PCs that can talk to each other over the LOCAL wireless network. Run iperf in server mode on one, and in client mode on the other. They will transmit data in both directions over the network between the two PCs, giving you the fastest speed your local network can support (be it a WLAN, or Gigabit wired, or 100Mbit, etc...)

I don't know what you're hoping to see with this "In the real world" stuff. It doesn't tell you much because, with wireless, you have no way of knowing the distance between the device and the access point for each user posting - how crowded their wifi space is, if there are any interference sources like wireless phones & microwaves, if the PC is introducing other latencies due to disk/cpu, etc. If I wanted to, I could post numbers that are really high from my laptop sitting 5' line of sight from the access point, and really low from the curb outside 100' away. They're both "real world" but what do they tell you, exactly?

In the absence of any of that garbage, in reasonable residential settings, 20-23mbit for 802.11g is typical. You *might* get up to 26/27mbit with non-standard "turbo" stuff, but if you're in the low 20s you're getting what you should get. If you start pushing the range (signals below 70%) or you're stuck with 20 neighbors all with G as well, it's going to be lower.

I run 802.11n 2.4Ghz gear, wide channel, and get solid numbers in the high 50/low 60Mbit range as expected... down to 40Mbit for single channel width as expected for clients that don't support wide channel 2.4Ghz. The numbers are what they are, you won't do better, and if you do worse all you can do is move your channel around to see if you can find clearer spectrum, get better gear with better antennas, move the access point around, reduce the range, etc.
SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium Member
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX

SipSizzurp to LowInfoVoter

Premium Member

to LowInfoVoter
said by LowInfoVoter:

...ive found that typically, i can only get about 2 Megabytes (16 megabits) sustained on my unencrypted network.

Major OUCH on the measly bandwidth ! Now that you have seen the 30 Mbps in the screen shot I linked to and have read all the other posters here who are getting well over 20 and some over 30 with "G" radios, your 16 sounds pretty ill. Is 16 enough for what you need or do you need more ? Have you considered getting a new router ? You can get some "N" routers these days for under 30 dollars, and they can go a lot faster. I have some "N" routers that are faster than my 100 Mbit network. Speed tests across the link are just as fast as I can measure with a CAT5 cable. Pretty amazing stuff !

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to LowInfoVoter

Premium Member

to LowInfoVoter
said by LowInfoVoter:

if you even added another 2 megabytes of overhead (unheard of, but illustrates my point very well) 32 megabits falls FAR short of the theoretical 54 megabit limit of wireless g.

54Mbit is the bidirectional throughput, or 27Mbit max in each direction. Welcome to Marketing. Now. of the 27Mbit, you lose about 5Mbit to overhead, and you get.... 22Mbit. which is mostly what you see on "non-turbo" G.

Your screenshot showing 1.9MBs is close to 20Mbit/s, you're not actually far off the mark.

You'll likely get better speeds with WPA on, I'd try that and retest.
srr2
join:2001-12-20
Pipersville, PA

srr2 to LowInfoVoter

Member

to LowInfoVoter
There's no screenshot, so feel free to accuse me of lying. Anyway, this thread made me curious about how fast my network worked since I'd never measured it.

This is a 5GHz "n" (with 40MHz channel) network where the adapters typically report from 240Mb/sec to 300Mb/sec, most usually the latter. Anyway, a 483MB (507,111,232 bytes to be precise) file copied across the wireless link in 42 seconds. That's around 12MB/sec. Is that good? Typical? Crawling? I dunno. Seems more or less reasonable given the speeds others have cited.

LowInfoVoter
Vote early, vote often, vote democrat.
join:2007-11-19
USA

LowInfoVoter to SipSizzurp

Member

to SipSizzurp
said by SipSizzurp:

Now that you have seen the 30 Mbps in the screen shot

nothing in your screenshot shows this. as far as this thread is concerned i've only seen about 18mbps and my own 16 mbps.

i love adblock.
SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium Member
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX

SipSizzurp

Premium Member

It is in the link of my second edit. If yer not even gonna read your responses why you even asking for input ?

You didn't aswer my question either. What the hell are you gonna do with your lame ass radio link ?

LowInfoVoter
Vote early, vote often, vote democrat.
join:2007-11-19
USA

LowInfoVoter

Member

i read them. i asked for screenshots. you posted none on topic. i moved on to the next post. what's so hard about that?

also, i didn't ask you to ask me about the use of my wireless. i SIMPLY asked for people to post their SS of their 802.11g speeds in action. if you dont like what the thread's about, MOVE ON!