PING: Jeff Liebermann - Netgear WGT634U Storage Router Info!

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by Jim Donald, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. Jim Donald

    Jim Donald Guest

    Hi Jeff,

    What we were talking about last week re the WGT634Us...

    Well, after promising trials I bought a couple and they work fine
    here. The USB storage feature is great because it means I can have
    24/7 FTP without leaving a PC running all the time. However, I had a
    few probs setting up the first USB disk. For details - please see my
    other post in alt.comp.networking.routers.


    Netgear DG834G = ADSL on ch12
    Netgear WGT634U 1 = Cable 1 on ch6
    Netgear WGT634U 2 = Cable 2 on ch1

    Adapters are Netgear WG111 USB - a mixture of v.1 & 2

    Great signals and everything working fine in my little reinforced
    concrete domain - including FTP. Netgear sure is the way to go. Thanks
    again for all your help.

    Jim Donald, Sep 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Heh-heh. It's amazing how many devices are fixed with a power cycle.
    It fairly difficult to design an incompatible USB 2.0 device, but
    given sufficient creativity, some manufacturers seem to have
    That will work. I still can't figure out why you need all those
    service. Congratulations and I'm jealous. Thanks for the report.
    I didn't see much in the way of security in the WGT634U manual for
    ftp. Unless I missed something, the ftp server is wide open. Is this
    the way you want it?

    # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    # 831.336.2558 voice Skype: JeffLiebermann
    # AE6KS
    Jeff Liebermann, Sep 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Donald

    Jim Donald Guest

    I didn't see much in the way of security in the WGT634U manual for
    You can password protect the shared folders. But it isn't a true FTP
    server insofar as no one can write to it over the Internet (only over
    LAN). Also - if the disk is partitioned NTFS then it's 'read only' too
    - whether on LAN on WAN.

    I think Netgear have missed an opportunity here, because I guess there
    will be lots of people who would like an FTP server without having to
    run a dedicated PC (with all the noise and everything).

    Meanwhile, the WGT634U suits me okay because if somebody needs a
    certain file(s) I can just dump it onto the router and let them
    download when they please. No more CD/DVD burning.

    Further, it appears that I live in a technologically sparse area. As
    far as I can tell there isn't another wireless network within at least
    a square mile.

    However, I am still a little perplexed. On ONE of the networks I
    appear to be getting an 'excellent' signal (48-54Mbps) but when I
    start to FTP on the LAN the stream drops to 1Mbps. At other times the
    transfers start fairly fast but then drop down to 1Mbps again. I'm
    using Netgear WG111 with the WGT634U and it only happens on this one
    machine and this one Network. Also - this usually happens when I'm
    trying to transfer a group of files. The first few files start at
    around 36Mbps but then everything just slows to a snail's pace.

    I've tried re-siting the router and my antenna but to no avail.

    Would there be any advantage in upgrading to a faster USB adapter on
    the troublesome machine - something that could take advantage of the
    WGT634U's 108Mbps capabilities? Is 108 Mbps actually achievable? It
    seems a lot for wireless.
    Jim Donald, Sep 4, 2005
  4. Jim Donald

    Jim Donald Guest


    Actually - and this is weird...

    Despite what it says in the manual you CAN write to the
    router-attached storage device over the Net. I've just been trying it.
    And it works fine.
    Jim Donald, Sep 4, 2005
  5. Well, I don't think the ftp server is the popular feature. Methinks a
    web server would make more sense.
    Let's see if I got this right. When you connect via wireless, you get
    a 48-54Mbit/sec association. However, when you start to move data, it
    drops to 1Mbit/sec. Well, the first thing to try is turn off all the
    other wireless devices and see if they're part of the problem.
    Probably not, but it pays to make sure.

    There was a also a nasy bug in the Intel 2200BG driver that caused
    everything to slow down to 1Mbit/sec and not recover.
    My seat of the pants guess is that it's the client radio or driver.
    If this client radio works with the other WGT634U, then it's certainly
    the WG111 or the driver. Try it.
    I've never seen thruput over about 50Mbits/sec. The thruput is
    usually about half the connection speed. 54Mbits/sec maxes out at
    about 30Mbits/sec. With 108Mbit/sec connection, you'll get about
    50Mbits/sec thruput. However, the range will be very limited.

    his is stolen from an Atheros PDF at:
    with some additions and corrections by me.

    Non-overlapping Modulation Max Max Max
    Channels ------- | Link TCP UDP
    | | | | |
    802.11b 3 CCK 11 5.9 7.1
    802.11g (with
    802.11b) 3 OFDM/CCK 54 14.4 19.5
    802.11g only 3 OFDM 54 24.4 30.5
    802.11g turbo 1 OFDM 108 42.9 54.8
    802.11a 13 OFDM 54 24.4 30.5
    802.11a turbo 6 OFDM 108 42.9 54.8
    Jeff Liebermann, Sep 5, 2005
  6. Argh. Remind me to proofread my junk before I post it, not after.

    What I meant was that if the WG111 fails in the same way with the
    other two wireless routers, then it's probably something wrong on the
    computah or WG111. However, if only this one combination fails, then
    it's probably something odd about the WGT634U. Try all the
    combinations of client radio and wireless router and see if you can
    see a pattern.
    Jeff Liebermann, Sep 5, 2005
  7. Jim Donald

    Jim Donald Guest

    Thanks again for sharing your expertise Jeff. This reader cetrainly is
    much obliged for the time and trouble you have gone to here.
    Additionally, those links made most interesting reading.


    108Mbps is a bit of a marketing thing, huh? I thought as much. Yet
    50Mbps isn't too bad for me - or even 30Mbps. I had no idea that
    'connection speed' and 'data speed' would be different. When the tray
    icon said 'signal excellent - connected at 54Mbps' I just assumed that
    would also be the data throughput speed. Doh...;-)

    With regard to my problem. As a last resort (before doing anything
    major) I took my life in my hands and scaled a very shaky set of
    ladders to place the client antenna much higher up on the wall near
    the ceiling. I stuck the base on with some Blu-Tack rather than the
    supplied Velcro strip and now my speeds are around the correct levels
    you mentioned. Not 54Mbps - but between 15 and 30 most times.

    Also - would I be right in thinking that repositioning one's antenna
    and/or router even 'slightly' (by a mere few inches) can make a BIG
    difference to performance? Or is my improvement just a fluke?

    Otherwise your alternative advice is filed away for future reference.

    Further - I agree with you about the web server thing? One of THOSE in
    a router would be really cool.

    Thanks again.

    P.S. Despite what it says in the WGT634U manual, with the right
    previously-set permissions, one CAN actually 'write' to any attached
    storage device over the Internet. I tried it and it works fine.
    Jim Donald, Sep 5, 2005
  8. Larger numbers are better, according to marketing. What they don't
    tell you is that there's LOTS of overhead to Wi-Fi and you'll be lucky
    to get about half that in thruput, and only at limited ranges. That's
    why I always use "connection speed" and "thruput" to distinguish
    between the numbers.

    You might wanna download and read:
    which is Intel's instructions on how to setup a wireless network.
    Table 4-7 is a chart of range versus connection speeds. I don't agree
    with their numbers, but they have the right idea. Divide the range in
    ft by 1/3 to get a more realistic value.
    Well, you're learning. It's common knowledge. See:
    It's a "walk test" comparing thruput with and without Super-G. Note
    that the higher speeds are fairly well maintained throughout the
    entire 300ft (center of graph) walk. I've done similar tests and
    gotten similar results. The higher speed devices are generally better
    overall, but not always at any given point or location.
    Bingo. Now I know what was happening when your speed was dropping to
    1Mbit/sec. You were dealing with indoor reflections and multipath.
    These tend to be fatal to thruput. They reflected signals arrive at
    inconvenient times (between packets), smear data, mangle timing, and
    generally create packet errors. The access point defends itself by
    slowing down, which increases the receiver sensitivity and reduces the
    effects of multipath. You probably could have moved around a bit and
    improved the situation.
    Yes, antenna location and position is very critical to proper
    operation. The idea is to get the best direct path. If you're
    dealing with reflections, things will not work well. If you're in a
    null, where two or more signals cancel, then moving 1/4 wavelength in
    any direction will eliminate the effects. 1/4 wavelength is about
    It would be fairly easy to implement as the router already has a web
    server in firmware used for configuration. Personally, I would prefer
    to see the USB memory used for log file collection, authentication,
    and SNMP based performance data collection, but that would probably be
    to weird for a consumer product. Still, a "personal web server" would
    be handy.
    Yech. Passwords passed in the clear with no encryption. Easily
    sniffed. No SFTP (secure ftp) or SCP (secure copy). No logging or
    ftpaccess. Are you sure you wanna run such a crude ftp server?

    Incidentally, on the password issue, one of my clueless customers
    insisted on using the same password for everything. His POP3 password
    for email got sniffed by someone. With the email address, he figured
    out my clients eBay account name. The password worked. Fortunately,
    his Paypal account used a different password. If you do play the
    password game, kindly use a different password on everything,
    especially easily sniffed passwords such as found on simple ftp
    Jeff Liebermann, Sep 5, 2005
  9. Jim Donald

    Jim Donald Guest

    Yech. Passwords passed in the clear with no encryption. Easily
    Well, I suppose it'll be okay for the low-grade stuff I have. Nothing
    worth stealing really. Just some family photos and a few MP3s. But I
    take your point. It's not exactly secure.

    Thanks again for all your wisdom Jeff. Mucho appreciando.
    Jim Donald, Sep 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.