higher speed with wireless than wired!

I have a router, and I'm hoping someday to have a little home network.

No time to work on that now, but I'm happy that the wired and wireless
connections work.

In the computer on my desk, 2 or 3 feet as the wire goes, from the
router, I get a 100.0 Mbps connection.

Today I noticed that the computer in the basement, two flights down
and 20 feet horizontally, I get 180.0 Mbps.

A. What's up with that?

Is it faster in the air because air is "thinner" than wire? If it
were fudge, would it be somewhere in the middle?

If it matters, the first computer is 800 Mhz running XP sp3, and
the basement computer is 1300 Mhz win2000 sp4.

B. Does the OS or cpu speed matter?

Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, mm chose
the tried and tested strategy of:

> In the computer on my desk, 2 or 3 feet as the wire goes, from the
> router, I get a 100.0 Mbps connection.
>
> Today I noticed that the computer in the basement, two flights down
> and 20 feet horizontally, I get 180.0 Mbps.

In both cases that's the raw speed. With the wireless however, the overheads
are a lot higher, so the actual usable throughput you get from the wireless
may be less than the wired connection. Another thought that strikes me is
that the speed will always be shown as 180Mbps regardless of the quality of
the wireless signal. Move to the edge of your wireless range and see if it
still reports a 180Mbps connection.

> B. Does the OS or cpu speed matter?

Yes. If you have an inefficient OS [or more likely, inefficient network
drivers] or a slow CPU, you may hit other bottlenecks before the network
speed.

If you want to test this yourself, you can use a synthetic bandwidth testing
tool like iperf [or maybe that's iPerf].

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
20:34:33 up 2 days, 8:02, 5 users, load average: 0.06, 0.24, 0.64
Qua illic est accuso, illic est a vindicatum

mm wrote:

> In the computer on my desk, 2 or 3 feet as the wire goes, from the
> router, I get a 100.0 Mbps connection.

There are ethernet nic/s that just do 100 Mbit/s. Also that do 1000.
And some 1 Gigs. Enterprise 10/40/100 gigs developing.

> If it matters, the first computer is 800 Mhz running XP sp3, and
> the basement computer is 1300 Mhz win2000 sp4.
>
> B. Does the OS or cpu speed matter?

The card or the mobo implementation of a nic matters.


--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:55:49 -0700, Mike Easter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>mm wrote:
>
>> In the computer on my desk, 2 or 3 feet as the wire goes, from the
>> router, I get a 100.0 Mbps connection.
>
>There are ethernet nic/s that just do 100 Mbit/s. Also that do 1000.
>And some 1 Gigs. Enterprise 10/40/100 gigs developing.

I forgot that my nic is 100/1000.

>> If it matters, the first computer is 800 Mhz running XP sp3, and
>> the basement computer is 1300 Mhz win2000 sp4.
>>
>> B. Does the OS or cpu speed matter?
>
>The card or the mobo implementation of a nic matters.

Well, an other guy set up the fast one, and I just plugged in the
seemingly slower XP one.

Either speed is fast enough. I just wanted to know what is going on.

Thanks.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:42:17 +0100, alexd <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, mm chose
>the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> In the computer on my desk, 2 or 3 feet as the wire goes, from the
>> router, I get a 100.0 Mbps connection.
>>
>> Today I noticed that the computer in the basement, two flights down
>> and 20 feet horizontally, I get 180.0 Mbps.
>
>In both cases that's the raw speed. With the wireless however, the overheads
>are a lot higher, so the actual usable throughput you get from the wireless
>may be less than the wired connection.

Thank goodness for that. I like wire, and I don't like to see it
dissed. Air otoh is promiscuous.

> Another thought that strikes me is
>that the speed will always be shown as 180Mbps regardless of the quality of
>the wireless signal. Move to the edge of your wireless range and see if it
>still reports a 180Mbps connection.

I'd need bigger arms and a longer cord. I do have a laptop, but
haven't used it for a year or two. It's mostly for travel or showing
people photos.

>> B. Does the OS or cpu speed matter?
>
>Yes. If you have an inefficient OS [or more likely, inefficient network
>drivers] or a slow CPU, you may hit other bottlenecks before the network
>speed.
>
>If you want to test this yourself, you can use a synthetic bandwidth testing
>tool like iperf [or maybe that's iPerf].

I'll look into that.

I don't do anything requiring speed, except sometimes dl'ing video.
Maybe I'll do some of that to see if I can see a difference.

Thanks.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:btOdnZxactFfzLTRnZ2dnUVZ_s-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "mm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:42:17 +0100, alexd <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, mm
>>>chose
>>>the tried and tested strategy of:
>>>
>>>> In the computer on my desk, 2 or 3 feet as the wire goes, from the
>>>> router, I get a 100.0 Mbps connection.
>>>>
>>>> Today I noticed that the computer in the basement, two flights down
>>>> and 20 feet horizontally, I get 180.0 Mbps.
>>>
>>>In both cases that's the raw speed. With the wireless however, the
>>>overheads
>>>are a lot higher, so the actual usable throughput you get from the
>>>wireless
>>>may be less than the wired connection.
>>
>> Thank goodness for that. I like wire, and I don't like to see it
>> dissed. Air otoh is promiscuous.
>>
>>> Another thought that strikes me is
>>>that the speed will always be shown as 180Mbps regardless of the quality
>>>of
>>>the wireless signal. Move to the edge of your wireless range and see if
>>>it
>>>still reports a 180Mbps connection.
>>
>> I'd need bigger arms and a longer cord. I do have a laptop, but
>> haven't used it for a year or two. It's mostly for travel or showing
>> people photos.
>>
>>>> B. Does the OS or cpu speed matter?
>>>
>>>Yes. If you have an inefficient OS [or more likely, inefficient network
>>>drivers] or a slow CPU, you may hit other bottlenecks before the network
>>>speed.
>>>
>>>If you want to test this yourself, you can use a synthetic bandwidth
>>>testing
>>>tool like iperf [or maybe that's iPerf].
>>
>> I'll look into that.
>>
>> I don't do anything requiring speed, except sometimes dl'ing video.
>> Maybe I'll do some of that to see if I can see a difference.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
>
> hate to say it but it's a flat out bald faced lie.... wireless ethernet is
> never ever in reality faster than wired ethernet, but some manufacturers
> put a phony lieing number on the screen so people think they are doing
> what they arent faster.... drivers can display any number they choose
> (real or not) on the icon on the system tray.... run most benchmark
> programs, and the max speed for wireless is 54, wired 100

The max speed of 54 is true for wireless G routers, but for wireless N the
maximum is 600. Of course, not all N routers can do 600. Mine has a
maximum of 270.

Oh, and 100 Mbit is not the max for wired. The 40 Gbit and 100 Gbit
standards just got ratified. But never mind those. Most NICs these days
are 10/100/1000 Mbit.

"Peter Pan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...

>> The max speed of 54 is true for wireless G routers, but for wireless N
>> the maximum is 600. Of course, not all N routers can do 600. Mine has
>> a maximum of 270.
>>
>> Oh, and 100 Mbit is not the max for wired. The 40 Gbit and 100 Gbit
>> standards just got ratified. But never mind those. Most NICs these days
>> are 10/100/1000 Mbit.
>>
>>
>
> i thought the theoretical max was 300
> http://compnetworking.about.com/od/w...n-300-mbps.htm
>
> 802.11n networks support approximately 300 Mbps of rated (theoretical)
> bandwidth under the best conditions. Unfortunately, an 802.11n network
> will sometimes operate at much lower speeds (130 Mbps and below).
>
> Answer: For an 802.11n network to run at its maximum speed, Wireless N
> routers and network adapters must be linked and running in a channel
> bonding mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/wi-fi-standard/

Some 600 Mbit N routers may begin to roll out:
http://us.generation-nt.com/router-w...s-2260841.html.