Adding Access points

It seems logical that adding an access point for each computer(4) connected
to a dsl router would be better(speed wise) than connecting all computers to
the same access point. Is my thinking correct?

Thanks

In article <gV1bb.4357$(E-Mail Removed)>, petejoh2
@NOSPAMpacbell.net says...
> It seems logical that adding an access point for each computer(4) connected
> to a dsl router would be better(speed wise) than connecting all computers to
> the same access point. Is my thinking correct?

No. Not unless your DSL connection is faster than the aggregate
throughput of a single AP.

So how about if all 4 computers are accessing files off of one another at
the same time.


"Neb Revod" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) .net...
> In article <gV1bb.4357$(E-Mail Removed)>, petejoh2
> @NOSPAMpacbell.net says...
> > It seems logical that adding an access point for each computer(4)
connected
> > to a dsl router would be better(speed wise) than connecting all
computers to
> > the same access point. Is my thinking correct?
>
> No. Not unless your DSL connection is faster than the aggregate
> throughput of a single AP.

In article <4w3bb.344$(E-Mail Removed)>, petejoh2
@NOSPAMpacbell.net says...
> So how about if all 4 computers are accessing files off of one another at
> the same time.
>
> > No. Not unless your DSL connection is faster than the aggregate
> > throughput of a single AP.

That's rather a different question than "...connected to a DSL
router...".

If you don't run into channel spacing issues becasue the AP's are in
such close physical proximity, then there would certainly be gains to be
made by dedicating one AP to each wireless client. This is, of course,
assuming that the wired backbone joining the AP's on the WAN side is 100
mbps.

This sounds like a gamer's issue, for I can think of no other
application that is likely generate any significant, much less
perecptible, performance degradation by sharing one 802.llg AP.

Thank you


"Neb Revod" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) .net...
> In article <4w3bb.344$(E-Mail Removed)>, petejoh2
> @NOSPAMpacbell.net says...
> > So how about if all 4 computers are accessing files off of one another
at
> > the same time.
> >
> > > No. Not unless your DSL connection is faster than the aggregate
> > > throughput of a single AP.
>
> That's rather a different question than "...connected to a DSL
> router...".
>
> If you don't run into channel spacing issues becasue the AP's are in
> such close physical proximity, then there would certainly be gains to be
> made by dedicating one AP to each wireless client. This is, of course,
> assuming that the wired backbone joining the AP's on the WAN side is 100
> mbps.
>
> This sounds like a gamer's issue, for I can think of no other
> application that is likely generate any significant, much less
> perecptible, performance degradation by sharing one 802.llg AP.

"pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gV1bb.4357$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> It seems logical that adding an access point for each computer(4)
connected
> to a dsl router would be better(speed wise) than connecting all computers
to
> the same access point. Is my thinking correct?

Your dsl connection speed is probably lower than the WLAN speed of the
Access Point, so more APs won't give you faster internet access.

Thor.

I was under the impression that real world throughput on 802.11b was around
5.5mbs. This being the case, isn't that 5.5mbs sharing by all 4 computers?
So if I were to be transfering files and/or downloading files between all 4
computers my bandwidth for each would be around 1.375mbs. So having an
access point for each computer would increase individual bandwidth, yes?

Thanks

"Thor Spruyt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5Kfbb.6453$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:gV1bb.4357$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> > It seems logical that adding an access point for each computer(4)
> connected
> > to a dsl router would be better(speed wise) than connecting all
computers
> to
> > the same access point. Is my thinking correct?
>
> Your dsl connection speed is probably lower than the WLAN speed of the
> Access Point, so more APs won't give you faster internet access.
>
> Thor.
>
>

In message <CYibb.608$(E-Mail Removed)>, pete
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I was under the impression that real world throughput on 802.11b was
>around 5.5mbs.

AFAIK it depends on so many factors. 802.11b and 802.11g both use
fall-back if things aren't quite right.

>This being the case, isn't that 5.5mbs sharing by all 4 computers? So
>if I were to be transfering files and/or downloading files between all
>4 computers my bandwidth for each would be around 1.375mbs.

Makes sense.

>So having an access point for each computer would increase individual
>bandwidth, yes?

Problem here is that because of channel overlap, finding four channels
that don't interfere (and therefore slow things down) might be an issue.
Perceived wisdom AFAICS is to use channels 1, 6 and 11. That's three :-)
--
Tony Morgan
Smile in the face of adversity - and adversity will probably
think you're taking the piss and kick the shit out of you.

"pete" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CYibb.608$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> I was under the impression that real world throughput on 802.11b was
around
> 5.5mbs. This being the case, isn't that 5.5mbs sharing by all 4 computers?
> So if I were to be transfering files and/or downloading files between all
4
> computers my bandwidth for each would be around 1.375mbs. So having an
> access point for each computer would increase individual bandwidth, yes?

Do you really use all 4 computers at once? At the same time for heavy file
transfers? I'd try one AP first and see if you were happy with the results.
The potential conflicts with 4 AP's, not to mention the cost, would make
that worth a try, wouldn't it?

For the cost and trouble of setting up 4 wireless AP's, you might be able to
just run wire, and then you'd get SPEED! 10X the best you'll ever get under
802.11b, and maybe 3 times 802.11g. Your one wireless AP liklely has 4
ports already, and you might be able to run wire to only the easiest to
reach of the 4 computers.

I have three computers at home, one wired to the AP, one desktop wireless,
one notebook wireless. When I want to back up the notebook's HD, I connect
via cable to the router, and backup to the desktop directly connected to the
router. Otherwise, 802.11b seems fast enough for everything I do. My
internet connection is the slowest link anyway.

In article <CYibb.608$(E-Mail Removed)>, petejoh2
@NOSPAMpacbell.net says...
> I was under the impression that real world throughput on 802.11b was around
> 5.5mbs. This being the case, isn't that 5.5mbs sharing by all 4 computers?
> So if I were to be transfering files and/or downloading files between all 4
> computers my bandwidth for each would be around 1.375mbs. So having an
> access point for each computer would increase individual bandwidth, yes?

No. Check your math.
4 x 1.375 mbs = 5.5 mbs. Oh my! Is your DSL pipe REALLY that big?

Let's get real...
1.5 mbs is a pretty common pipe size, so as an example...
1.5 mbs / 4 users = 375 kbs per user.