Will wireless print server degrade my rangemax performance?

I have the following config:

Desktop upstairs with Netgear RangeMax (thing is UNBELIEVABLY good)
Notebook with vanilla Intel a/b/g internal card

I'm interested in adding a print server, and the best wired ones seem to
cost as much as the best wireless ones. I'm worried that adding a 3rd b/g
antenna in the house is going to cause too much 2.4GHz sword fighting.

Furthermore, it's location is likely to be *at least* within 5 feet of the
rangemax.

Anything to worry about?

THANKS!

--
Doesn't /anyone/ know where I can find a credit card company that emails me
the minute something is charged to my account?

"Thomas G. Marshall"
<(E-Mail Removed). com> hath wroth:

>Desktop upstairs with Netgear RangeMax (thing is UNBELIEVABLY good)
>Notebook with vanilla Intel a/b/g internal card
>
>I'm interested in adding a print server, and the best wired ones seem to
>cost as much as the best wireless ones. I'm worried that adding a 3rd b/g
>antenna in the house is going to cause too much 2.4GHz sword fighting.

It's not going to be a problem if the wireless print server is running
802.11g. Where you get into trouble is if you're using an 802.11b
print server. The wireless router has to slow down to deal with
those.

>Furthermore, it's location is likely to be *at least* within 5 feet of the
>rangemax.

If the printer is only 5ft away, why not get a wired ethernet print
server and just plug it into the back of the RangeMax router? Easier,
cheaper, neater, etc.

>Anything to worry about?

Taxes, big government, crime, Iraq, oil, inflation, ecology, global
warming, pandemics, tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, flooding,
etc. Compared to those, your print server problems are minor.

--
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

Jeff Liebermann said something like:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> hath wroth:
>
>> Desktop upstairs with Netgear RangeMax (thing is UNBELIEVABLY good)
>> Notebook with vanilla Intel a/b/g internal card
>>
>> I'm interested in adding a print server, and the best wired ones
>> seem to cost as much as the best wireless ones. I'm worried that
>> adding a 3rd b/g antenna in the house is going to cause too much
>> 2.4GHz sword fighting.
>
> It's not going to be a problem if the wireless print server is running
> 802.11g. Where you get into trouble is if you're using an 802.11b
> print server. The wireless router has to slow down to deal with
> those.
>
>> Furthermore, it's location is likely to be *at least* within 5 feet
>> of the rangemax.
>
> If the printer is only 5ft away, why not get a wired ethernet print
> server and just plug it into the back of the RangeMax router? Easier,
> cheaper, neater, etc.

Because, as I pointed out, the ones that don't cause trouble for people
(according to posts) cost the same as the wireless ones. And then I have
the freedom to put the thing /elsewhere/ later on. I originally wanted a
wired printserver, but discovered the huge hassles that the cheap ones were
causing even the system admins...





>
>> Anything to worry about?
>
> Taxes, big government, crime, Iraq, oil, inflation, ecology, global
> warming, pandemics, tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, flooding,
> etc. Compared to those, your print server problems are minor.

"Thomas G. Marshall"
<(E-Mail Removed). com> hath wroth:

>Because, as I pointed out, the ones that don't cause trouble for people
>(according to posts) cost the same as the wireless ones. And then I have
>the freedom to put the thing /elsewhere/ later on. I originally wanted a
>wired printserver, but discovered the huge hassles that the cheap ones were
>causing even the system admins...

I think you'll find that the huge hassles all revolve around USB
multi-function printer/fax/scanner/shredder devices. The printer
section can usually be convinced to work, but the other devices
require manufacturer supported drivers in order to "virtualize" these
devices over an ethernet or wireless link. Also, please note that
802.11 wireless is nothing more than encapsulated ethernet (802.3)
packets. Hidden inside each wireless print server is an ethernet
print server. The problems with these devices should be identical,
whether wireless or wired.

Frankly, I've become rather bored with salvaging customers print
server installations, where a 3rd party wired or wireless print server
doesn't work with some bargain basement multi-malfunction
printer/fax/scanner device. Invariably, it's a driver issue that
either demands that the customer purchase the recommended and
overpriced print server, or wait until the next driver update
(assuming the product lives that long). The print server often costs
more than the printer. I don't do too many of these, but enough to
notice that the problems with wireless are no different than the
problems with wired print servers.

--
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

Jeff Liebermann said something like:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> hath wroth:
>
>> Because, as I pointed out, the ones that don't cause trouble for people
>> (according to posts) cost the same as the wireless ones. And then I have
>> the freedom to put the thing /elsewhere/ later on. I originally wanted a
>> wired printserver, but discovered the huge hassles that the cheap ones
>> were
>> causing even the system admins...
>
> I think you'll find that the huge hassles all revolve around USB
> multi-function printer/fax/scanner/shredder devices.

So I've read.


> The printer
> section can usually be convinced to work, but the other devices
> require manufacturer supported drivers in order to "virtualize" these
> devices over an ethernet or wireless link. Also, please note that
> 802.11 wireless is nothing more than encapsulated ethernet (802.3)
> packets. Hidden inside each wireless print server is an ethernet
> print server. The problems with these devices should be identical,
> whether wireless or wired.

Ok.


> Frankly, I've become rather bored with salvaging customers print
> server installations, where a 3rd party wired or wireless print server
> doesn't work with some bargain basement multi-malfunction
> printer/fax/scanner device. Invariably, it's a driver issue that
> either demands that the customer purchase the recommended and
> overpriced print server, or wait until the next driver update
> (assuming the product lives that long). The print server often costs
> more than the printer. I don't do too many of these, but enough to
> notice that the problems with wireless are no different than the
> problems with wired print servers.


Ok, thanks for that. My concern, however, is primarily with the [airborne]
signal discipline. I'm going to beat this dead horse one more time and then
call it deceased only because there's an slightly different technology
involved. My netgear RangeMax router has 7 internal antenna's. They are
supposedly adapting to issues dynamically. All 802.11g.

Is there anything about the RangeMax setup in particular which will suddenly
degrade by having a standard single antenna 802.11g within 5 feet of it?
Will it partially attenuate the signal, or reduce it's ability to adapt, or
eclipse a part of the house? Perhaps my concern here makes more sense when
you realize that I *need* the RangeMax in my house, because nothing else
maintains a connection.

Thanks!


--
I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:

Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.

Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
error and tries to cover it up by thinking
fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
only succeeds in looking worse.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:37:23 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
<(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote:

>My concern, however, is primarily with the [airborne]
>signal discipline. I'm going to beat this dead horse one more time and then
>call it deceased only because there's an slightly different technology
>involved. My netgear RangeMax router has 7 internal antenna's. They are
>supposedly adapting to issues dynamically. All 802.11g.

Maybe this will help. Netgear RangeMax uses Beamflex for interference
avoidance.
http://www.ruckuswireless.com/technology/beamflex.php
The big difference between RangeMax/BeamFlex beam-steering and the
competative beam-forming method is their tolerance to reflections.
Beam-forming works much better for reflection reduction. They're
about the same for interference reduction.

>Is there anything about the RangeMax setup in particular which will suddenly
>degrade by having a standard single antenna 802.11g within 5 feet of it?

Yes, possibly. The increased antenna gain of the beam-steering system
may cause the radius at which a nearby client radio can overload the
receiver to be increased. A typical 802.11g access point gets
overloaded at a distance of about 2ft. My guess(tm) is that the
increased antenna gain in the RangeMax access point will move this
distance out to perhaps 6ft. I'm guessing, but don't have enough
numbers and specifications to be able to calculate this radius. It
also works both ways. The RangeMax access point can overload the
print server. It's easy enough to tell when you hit overload. Watch
the S/N (signal to noise ratio) on the client. When it drops suddenly
when you're too close, you've hit overload.

Want me to guess(tm) at the numbers and distances?

>Will it partially attenuate the signal, or reduce it's ability to adapt, or
>eclipse a part of the house?

No. None of the above. It will increase the error rate between the
print server and the RangeMax access point. That will show up as a
S/N ratio drop, increased retransmissions, reduced thruput, and
possibly a lower connection speed. You can simulate it with your
existing system by simply moving your existing client radio as close
to the access point as possible. If the receivers are good quality,
with good dynamic range, you may be lucky and have absolutely nothing
happen.

>Perhaps my concern here makes more sense when
>you realize that I *need* the RangeMax in my house, because nothing else
>maintains a connection.

Well, let's look at this another way. The only time the print server
might cause a problem is when it's transmitting. If the print server
is just sitting there doing nothing but sending keep alive packets,
the RangeMax access point will barely notice its presence. However,
when you print something, the print server is using air time, which
might have an effect. However, printing is so slow relative to the
typical wireless to wireless speeds, that the interruption would
barely be noticed. Perhaps if you're printing while watching some
streaming video via wireless, you might see some slow down.

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

Jeff Liebermann said something like:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:37:23 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <(E-Mail Removed). com> wrote:
>
>> My concern, however, is primarily with the [airborne]
>> signal discipline. I'm going to beat this dead horse one more time and
>> then
>> call it deceased only because there's an slightly different technology
>> involved. My netgear RangeMax router has 7 internal antenna's. They are
>> supposedly adapting to issues dynamically. All 802.11g.
>
> Maybe this will help. Netgear RangeMax uses Beamflex for interference
> avoidance.
> http://www.ruckuswireless.com/technology/beamflex.php
> The big difference between RangeMax/BeamFlex beam-steering and the
> competative beam-forming method is their tolerance to reflections.
> Beam-forming works much better for reflection reduction. They're
> about the same for interference reduction.
>
>> Is there anything about the RangeMax setup in particular which will
>> suddenly
>> degrade by having a standard single antenna 802.11g within 5 feet of it?
>
> Yes, possibly. The increased antenna gain of the beam-steering system
> may cause the radius at which a nearby client radio can overload the
> receiver to be increased. A typical 802.11g access point gets
> overloaded at a distance of about 2ft. My guess(tm) is that the
> increased antenna gain in the RangeMax access point will move this
> distance out to perhaps 6ft. I'm guessing, but don't have enough
> numbers and specifications to be able to calculate this radius. It
> also works both ways. The RangeMax access point can overload the
> print server. It's easy enough to tell when you hit overload. Watch
> the S/N (signal to noise ratio) on the client. When it drops suddenly
> when you're too close, you've hit overload.
>
> Want me to guess(tm) at the numbers and distances?
>
>> Will it partially attenuate the signal, or reduce it's ability to adapt,
>> or
>> eclipse a part of the house?
>
> No. None of the above. It will increase the error rate between the
> print server and the RangeMax access point. That will show up as a
> S/N ratio drop, increased retransmissions, reduced thruput, and
> possibly a lower connection speed. You can simulate it with your
> existing system by simply moving your existing client radio as close
> to the access point as possible. If the receivers are good quality,
> with good dynamic range, you may be lucky and have absolutely nothing
> happen.
>
>> Perhaps my concern here makes more sense when
>> you realize that I *need* the RangeMax in my house, because nothing else
>> maintains a connection.
>
> Well, let's look at this another way. The only time the print server
> might cause a problem is when it's transmitting. If the print server
> is just sitting there doing nothing but sending keep alive packets,
> the RangeMax access point will barely notice its presence. However,
> when you print something, the print server is using air time, which
> might have an effect. However, printing is so slow relative to the
> typical wireless to wireless speeds, that the interruption would
> barely be noticed. Perhaps if you're printing while watching some
> streaming video via wireless, you might see some slow down.

Asked and [thoroughly] answered. Thanks!


--
It's time for everyone to just step back, take a deep breath, relax, and
stop
throwing hissy fits over crossposting.

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:59:31
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Well, let's look at this another way. The only time the print server
>might cause a problem is when it's transmitting. If the print server
>is just sitting there doing nothing but sending keep alive packets,
>the RangeMax access point will barely notice its presence. However,
>when you print something, the print server is using air time, which
>might have an effect. However, printing is so slow relative to the
>typical wireless to wireless speeds, that the interruption would
>barely be noticed. Perhaps if you're printing while watching some
>streaming video via wireless, you might see some slow down.

That's true for most printing, but raw bitmap printing can take a substantial
amount of bandwidth.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>