Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia
| WDS vrs Bridging
Hello,
I have WDS setup to bridge two networks over a 1km link.
There are only to WDS Units in Total
If I ditched the WDS and went to a bridged system would this be faster?
I know lots of people say WDS is slow but I was thinking with only 2 AP's it would be as good as a bridge as it doesnt have to wait for more AP's to respond.
Any Idea's?
Thanks
Rhys |
|
senthilraj
join:2004-12-06
641015
| HI,
Bridging should be faster than WDS. When you enable
WDS your network throughput decreases by 50 % and should have 50% cell overlap.It is always good to use Wireless Bridges to bridge buildings
.
Best regards,
Senthilraj.S
INDIA |
|
Equis
Premium
join:2005-03-18
Australia |  reply to Equis
Thanks for that.
With Bridges do you have a bridge going to a AP or Bridge to Bridge?
I have used the Dlink & Linksys Bridges but they seem to only be able to bridge 1 PC (mac address)
Thanks
Rhys |
|
senthilraj
join:2004-12-06
641015 | reply to Equis
You can have bridges going to bridges.
It is better to use bridges from a single vendor.
With regards,
Senthil |
|
shamanfk
join:2001-03-12
Fort Kent, ME | reply to Equis
It is a function of the software--how many MAC's a bridge can handle.
--
Success is getting what you want; Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Equis
Are you just conecting one radio to another? If you aren't using either as a regular access point then WDS is just as fast as briding. WDS is only 1/2 the speed if you are using one of the radios as a regular AP at the same time.
Many of the low cost bridges cannot handle a lot of mac addresses in bridge mode, WDS doesn't have problems with this. |
|
IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley | That's really the difference between bridging and WDS right as I understand it. The bridge must keep track of all the MAC's, but the WDS just flows packets right? |
|
aSic
application specific
Premium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
clubs: | Thats actually how I understand it as well. Although, it is 0200 in the morning.. I could be sleeptyping now.  |
|
nboxmedia
join:2004-07-10
Mount Olive, NC | reply to Equis
Which one is actually more stable, WDS or standard bridging? |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA | reply to Equis
WDS in theory will be more stable because it is a part of the extended standard, bridging has always been funky because of the "voodoo" involved in making it work. |
|
ponline
join:2004-03-04
presheva
1 edit | This might be stupid but i have to ask
If one AP is feeding two other APs each in wds mode, none of them is used as regular access point, will the performance of the first AP be devided in half for each AP all the time, or its shared between both APs depending on bandwidth neads??? |
|
nboxmedia
join:2004-07-10
Mount Olive, NC | reply to Equis
This is a good question. Is it divided per AP connected via WDS? |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Equis
Assuming you are not doing any repeating a WDS link behaves exactly like any other client on the AP. So the available bandwidth is shared amongst all of the clients.
The drawback to WDS or mesh for that matter is that when you do single radio repeating you run into store and forward since 802.11 radios cannot send and recieve at the same time. |
|
