Any point in fast network if ADSL is slow?

My telecom provider can only provide a 512k line connection, with file
downloads at 50k/min on a good day.
Is there any point in using equipment which can run at 54 or 108Mb/s
on my home network, when data transfer speed is limited by the
miserable bandwidth offered by BT at my location?
I realise that it is unreasonable of me to expect more bandwidth, in
the 21st century when I am all of 5 miles from a major city, and 4
miles from the exchange.........
Thanks for any advice/opinions

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> My telecom provider can only provide a 512k line connection, with file
> downloads at 50k/min on a good day.
> Is there any point in using equipment which can run at 54 or 108Mb/s
> on my home network, when data transfer speed is limited by the
> miserable bandwidth offered by BT at my location?
> I realise that it is unreasonable of me to expect more bandwidth, in
> the 21st century when I am all of 5 miles from a major city, and 4
> miles from the exchange.........
> Thanks for any advice/opinions

Faster internal speeds make sense if you are running a file server on an internal network. For
example, my file server is attached by a wired connection to my router but my laptop is wireless
802.11g, with a nominal speed of 54 Mbs. I am a Linux developer and do lots of compilations of the
kernel. When the kernel source is on an NFS mounted disk, I'm glad for every extra bps that I can get.

My broadband connection is Time-Warner cable with a download speed of 8 Mbs and 512 Kbs upload. If I
were using 802.11b wireless (11 Mbs), the wireless would not be able to keep up with the network.

I cannot use DSL because my phone company cannot provide it. I'm in a town of 5000 people only 20
miles from downtown Kansas City. Although my neighborhood is linked to the central exchange by
optical fiber, the outgoing connection to the world is ancient copper. Dialup cannot go faster than
28.8!

Larry

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Is there any point in using equipment which can run at 54 or 108Mb/s
> on my home network, when data transfer speed is limited by the
> miserable bandwidth offered by BT at my location?

If all you plan to pass is just internet traffic, then no, but if you plan
on passing LAN traffic...

Especially if you plan to pass media. Right now, wanting to stream HD
through the house will have you going back to cables in a hurry.

Larry Finger wrote:

>
> My broadband connection is Time-Warner cable with a download speed of
> 8 Mbs and 512 Kbs upload. If I were using 802.11b wireless (11 Mbs),
> the wireless would not be able to keep up with the network.
>
> Larry

You may have that backwards... From the numbers above, it looks like the
network (cable at 8Mbs), can't keep up with the wireless at 11.... I know
new math is sort of wierd, but 11 is still a bigger number than 8 isn't it?

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Larry Finger wrote:
>
>>
>> My broadband connection is Time-Warner cable with a download speed of
>> 8 Mbs and 512 Kbs upload. If I were using 802.11b wireless (11 Mbs),
>> the wireless would not be able to keep up with the network.
>>
>> Larry
>
> You may have that backwards... From the numbers above, it looks like the
> network (cable at 8Mbs), can't keep up with the wireless at 11.... I know
> new math is sort of wierd, but 11 is still a bigger number than 8 isn't
> it?

Hi,

You math is fine, but what he was suggesting is that a "11Mbs" 802.11b won't
be able to support 8Mbs because 802.11b's "real world" speed is about 6Mbs
if you are lucky and all the planets are lined up...

Eric wrote:
> "Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>> Larry Finger wrote:
>>
>>> My broadband connection is Time-Warner cable with a download speed of
>>> 8 Mbs and 512 Kbs upload. If I were using 802.11b wireless (11 Mbs),
>>> the wireless would not be able to keep up with the network.
>>>
>>> Larry
>> You may have that backwards... From the numbers above, it looks like the
>> network (cable at 8Mbs), can't keep up with the wireless at 11.... I know
>> new math is sort of wierd, but 11 is still a bigger number than 8 isn't
>> it?
>
> Hi,
>
> You math is fine, but what he was suggesting is that a "11Mbs" 802.11b won't
> be able to support 8Mbs because 802.11b's "real world" speed is about 6Mbs
> if you are lucky and all the planets are lined up...

Exactly. A good rule of thumb is that if your interface is set at M Bps, you will be able to
transmit at about .5 to .6 M. My actual number, measured with Iperf, is 6.5 Mbs with a nominal rate
of 11 Mps.

Larry

Larry Finger <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Eric wrote:
>Exactly. A good rule of thumb is that if your interface is set at M Bps, you will be able to
>transmit at about .5 to .6 M. My actual number, measured with Iperf, is 6.5 Mbs with a nominal rate
>of 11 Mps.
>Larry

You have 2 thumbs. Therefore two rules will work. The first rule is
50% of connection speed or less (not more). The 2nd is that all
statistics and benchmarks lie in the optimistic direction.

My calcs for an 11Mbit/sec association show 5.9Mbit/sec maximum:
<http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Performance_and_Speed>
for TCP traffic. You can go up to 7Mbit/sec using UDP, but I've never
seen it using Iperf. Most of my typical field tests (with reflections
and interference) yield about 3.5Mbit/sec with an 11Mbit/sec
association.

Did you really get 6.5Mbit/sec with Iperf? If so, do you recall the
command line incantation or parameters (packet size, TCP/UDP, etc)?
No points for setting up 802.11b/g and just noticing it was running at
11Mbits/sec. I might easily switch momentarily to a higher speed and
wreck the benchmark. You gotta fix the speed in the access point if
you want a meaningful test.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558