![]() |
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
Wireless Networking - Slow 54Mbps G network - what are typical speeds? |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Hi, i have recently purchased a D-Link DWL-2100ap access point and a
DWL-G520+ PCI card. When i first setup the network the pci card kept droping the link, despite having 90%+ signal and 90%+ link quality. I moved the pc into the same room as the access point and got 100% signal, yet it still dropped the connection and i still had bad transfer speeds (around 300kbps). Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? I have changed channels, and found that i get the highest speed on channel 11. I read on forums to try us robotics drivers (and yes they work! - they are the same card with a different badge on), and are far more stable than the D-Link drivers. I have now got the speed upto around 14,000kbps peak. To do this i had to disable the D-Link "Super G mode". Before i disabled this mode (it was in Dynamic turbo mode) i only got ~6,000kbps. However, despite having 90%+ signal and link quality i am not approaching the 54Mbps limit of the g standard. I appreciate there will be some overhead for the network protocols which will take away from this theorectical maximum, but over 50% overhead i find extremely harsh. I am much happier with this higher speed, but anymore would be great. Can anyone give me some tips to try to increase the speed? D-Link have just released a new set of drivers for the card which i will try. I dont want to decrease the encryption length (it is currently WEP 128bit cypher). What real-world speeds have people obtained with their wireless networks? I would be interested in both 11mpbs and 54mpbs rates. Has anyone got these 'proprietry' enchancements working, and do they actually increase the performance? Many thanks in advance, Chris Chris |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Hi.
Dropping the signal might be due to environmental Noise 2.4GHz phones etc. First make sure that you get a stable connection without WEP(or WPA) and only then attend to the security issues. The following page (in the middle) contains the info that you asked for. http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Hardware.html As for security: http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html Jack (MVP - Networking). "Chris" <> wrote in message news: om... > Hi, i have recently purchased a D-Link DWL-2100ap access point and a > DWL-G520+ PCI card. > > When i first setup the network the pci card kept droping the link, > despite having 90%+ signal and 90%+ link quality. I moved the pc into > the same room as the access point and got 100% signal, yet it still > dropped the connection and i still had bad transfer speeds (around > 300kbps). Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good > quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? > > I have changed channels, and found that i get the highest speed on > channel 11. I read on forums to try us robotics drivers (and yes they > work! - they are the same card with a different badge on), and are far > more stable than the D-Link drivers. > > I have now got the speed upto around 14,000kbps peak. To do this i had > to disable the D-Link "Super G mode". Before i disabled this mode (it > was in Dynamic turbo mode) i only got ~6,000kbps. > > However, despite having 90%+ signal and link quality i am not > approaching the 54Mbps limit of the g standard. I appreciate there > will be some overhead for the network protocols which will take away > from this theorectical maximum, but over 50% overhead i find extremely > harsh. I am much happier with this higher speed, but anymore would be > great. > > Can anyone give me some tips to try to increase the speed? D-Link have > just released a new set of drivers for the card which i will try. I > dont want to decrease the encryption length (it is currently WEP > 128bit cypher). > > What real-world speeds have people obtained with their wireless > networks? I would be interested in both 11mpbs and 54mpbs rates. Has > anyone got these 'proprietry' enchancements working, and do they > actually increase the performance? > > Many thanks in advance, > > Chris |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
On a good day, with a clean signal with little or no interference, you can
expect to get 22 to 25 Mbps for Super-G and 14 to 18 Mbps with regular 54G. In general practice, you will most likely get nowhere near that level of performance. the 54Mbs/108Mbs rating is for a "canned" network...two units in an electromagnetically sealed room, with xmitter and rcvr only 1 meter apart. The numbers are a marketing ply...not what you can expect to ever get on your LAN. Bobby "Chris" <> wrote in message news: om... > Hi, i have recently purchased a D-Link DWL-2100ap access point and a > DWL-G520+ PCI card. > > When i first setup the network the pci card kept droping the link, > despite having 90%+ signal and 90%+ link quality. I moved the pc into > the same room as the access point and got 100% signal, yet it still > dropped the connection and i still had bad transfer speeds (around > 300kbps). Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good > quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? > > I have changed channels, and found that i get the highest speed on > channel 11. I read on forums to try us robotics drivers (and yes they > work! - they are the same card with a different badge on), and are far > more stable than the D-Link drivers. > > I have now got the speed upto around 14,000kbps peak. To do this i had > to disable the D-Link "Super G mode". Before i disabled this mode (it > was in Dynamic turbo mode) i only got ~6,000kbps. > > However, despite having 90%+ signal and link quality i am not > approaching the 54Mbps limit of the g standard. I appreciate there > will be some overhead for the network protocols which will take away > from this theorectical maximum, but over 50% overhead i find extremely > harsh. I am much happier with this higher speed, but anymore would be > great. > > Can anyone give me some tips to try to increase the speed? D-Link have > just released a new set of drivers for the card which i will try. I > dont want to decrease the encryption length (it is currently WEP > 128bit cypher). > > What real-world speeds have people obtained with their wireless > networks? I would be interested in both 11mpbs and 54mpbs rates. Has > anyone got these 'proprietry' enchancements working, and do they > actually increase the performance? > > Many thanks in advance, > > Chris |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
For SuperG at say 24Mbps (3 MB/sec), is this the speed at which you are
actually transferring data? Or is it measured otherwise? Brian "NoNoBadDog!" <mysocks_bjsledge_AT_pixi.com> wrote in message news:... > On a good day, with a clean signal with little or no interference, you can > expect to get 22 to 25 Mbps for Super-G and 14 to 18 Mbps with regular 54G. > In general practice, you will most likely get nowhere near that level of > performance. the 54Mbs/108Mbs rating is for a "canned" network...two units > in an electromagnetically sealed room, with xmitter and rcvr only 1 meter > apart. The numbers are a marketing ply...not what you can expect to ever > get on your LAN. > > Bobby > > "Chris" <> wrote in message > news: om... > > Hi, i have recently purchased a D-Link DWL-2100ap access point and a > > DWL-G520+ PCI card. > > > > When i first setup the network the pci card kept droping the link, > > despite having 90%+ signal and 90%+ link quality. I moved the pc into > > the same room as the access point and got 100% signal, yet it still > > dropped the connection and i still had bad transfer speeds (around > > 300kbps). Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good > > quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? > > > > I have changed channels, and found that i get the highest speed on > > channel 11. I read on forums to try us robotics drivers (and yes they > > work! - they are the same card with a different badge on), and are far > > more stable than the D-Link drivers. > > > > I have now got the speed upto around 14,000kbps peak. To do this i had > > to disable the D-Link "Super G mode". Before i disabled this mode (it > > was in Dynamic turbo mode) i only got ~6,000kbps. > > > > However, despite having 90%+ signal and link quality i am not > > approaching the 54Mbps limit of the g standard. I appreciate there > > will be some overhead for the network protocols which will take away > > from this theorectical maximum, but over 50% overhead i find extremely > > harsh. I am much happier with this higher speed, but anymore would be > > great. > > > > Can anyone give me some tips to try to increase the speed? D-Link have > > just released a new set of drivers for the card which i will try. I > > dont want to decrease the encryption length (it is currently WEP > > 128bit cypher). > > > > What real-world speeds have people obtained with their wireless > > networks? I would be interested in both 11mpbs and 54mpbs rates. Has > > anyone got these 'proprietry' enchancements working, and do they > > actually increase the performance? > > > > Many thanks in advance, > > > > Chris > > |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Brian;
Your transfer speeds will vary dramatically from moment to moment. For short periods you may get a sustained transfer of 15Mbs, and in short periods your transfer might rise to 21-24Mbps. You must keep in mind that the traffic has to be monitored and controlled, and even though the LAN is technically asynchronous, packets must be handled so that they are moved efficiently. The overhead inherent in the broadcast signal also plays a role in how fast your true LAN speed is, as well as the hardware that is being used. I realize that you are probably concerned with getting the maximum transfer speed on your LAN, but please be aware that you can NEVER expect to use the full bandwidth all the time. There are so many factors that can affect signal transfer rates that it would in literal truth fill a nice sized book. I would not sweat over my network running 18Mbps and try to get 20Mbs. It is just not worth it. Unless you are streaming audio and/or video over the LAN, just be happy with what you have. Bobby "Brian K" <iibntgyea4_ remove_this_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f_9Ec.69819$... > For SuperG at say 24Mbps (3 MB/sec), is this the speed at which you are > actually transferring data? Or is it measured otherwise? > > Brian > > > "NoNoBadDog!" <mysocks_bjsledge_AT_pixi.com> wrote in message > news:... >> On a good day, with a clean signal with little or no interference, you >> can >> expect to get 22 to 25 Mbps for Super-G and 14 to 18 Mbps with regular > 54G. >> In general practice, you will most likely get nowhere near that level of >> performance. the 54Mbs/108Mbs rating is for a "canned" network...two > units >> in an electromagnetically sealed room, with xmitter and rcvr only 1 meter >> apart. The numbers are a marketing ply...not what you can expect to ever >> get on your LAN. >> >> Bobby >> >> "Chris" <> wrote in message >> news: om... >> > Hi, i have recently purchased a D-Link DWL-2100ap access point and a >> > DWL-G520+ PCI card. >> > >> > When i first setup the network the pci card kept droping the link, >> > despite having 90%+ signal and 90%+ link quality. I moved the pc into >> > the same room as the access point and got 100% signal, yet it still >> > dropped the connection and i still had bad transfer speeds (around >> > 300kbps). Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good >> > quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? >> > >> > I have changed channels, and found that i get the highest speed on >> > channel 11. I read on forums to try us robotics drivers (and yes they >> > work! - they are the same card with a different badge on), and are far >> > more stable than the D-Link drivers. >> > >> > I have now got the speed upto around 14,000kbps peak. To do this i had >> > to disable the D-Link "Super G mode". Before i disabled this mode (it >> > was in Dynamic turbo mode) i only got ~6,000kbps. >> > >> > However, despite having 90%+ signal and link quality i am not >> > approaching the 54Mbps limit of the g standard. I appreciate there >> > will be some overhead for the network protocols which will take away >> > from this theorectical maximum, but over 50% overhead i find extremely >> > harsh. I am much happier with this higher speed, but anymore would be >> > great. >> > >> > Can anyone give me some tips to try to increase the speed? D-Link have >> > just released a new set of drivers for the card which i will try. I >> > dont want to decrease the encryption length (it is currently WEP >> > 128bit cypher). >> > >> > What real-world speeds have people obtained with their wireless >> > networks? I would be interested in both 11mpbs and 54mpbs rates. Has >> > anyone got these 'proprietry' enchancements working, and do they >> > actually increase the performance? >> > >> > Many thanks in advance, >> > >> > Chris >> >> > > |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
On my wired network I get transfers of 240 MB/min for large files like drive
images. What can I expect (as an average) with Wireless G? Brian "NoNoBadDog!" <mysocks_bjsledge_AT_pixi.com> wrote in message news:%... > Brian; > > Your transfer speeds will vary dramatically from moment to moment. For > short periods you may get a sustained transfer of 15Mbs, and in short > periods your transfer might rise to 21-24Mbps. You must keep in mind that > the traffic has to be monitored and controlled, and even though the LAN is > technically asynchronous, packets must be handled so that they are moved > efficiently. The overhead inherent in the broadcast signal also plays a > role in how fast your true LAN speed is, as well as the hardware that is > being used. > > I realize that you are probably concerned with getting the maximum > transfer speed on your LAN, but please be aware that you can NEVER expect to > use the full bandwidth all the time. > > There are so many factors that can affect signal transfer rates that it > would in literal truth fill a nice sized book. I would not sweat over my > network running 18Mbps and try to get 20Mbs. It is just not worth it. > Unless you are streaming audio and/or video over the LAN, just be happy with > what you have. > > Bobby > > > "Brian K" <iibntgyea4_ remove_this_@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:f_9Ec.69819$... > > For SuperG at say 24Mbps (3 MB/sec), is this the speed at which you are > > actually transferring data? Or is it measured otherwise? > > > > Brian > > > > > > "NoNoBadDog!" <mysocks_bjsledge_AT_pixi.com> wrote in message > > news:... > >> On a good day, with a clean signal with little or no interference, you > >> can > >> expect to get 22 to 25 Mbps for Super-G and 14 to 18 Mbps with regular > > 54G. > >> In general practice, you will most likely get nowhere near that level of > >> performance. the 54Mbs/108Mbs rating is for a "canned" network...two > > units > >> in an electromagnetically sealed room, with xmitter and rcvr only 1 meter > >> apart. The numbers are a marketing ply...not what you can expect to ever > >> get on your LAN. > >> > >> Bobby > >> > >> "Chris" <> wrote in message > >> news: om... > >> > Hi, i have recently purchased a D-Link DWL-2100ap access point and a > >> > DWL-G520+ PCI card. > >> > > >> > When i first setup the network the pci card kept droping the link, > >> > despite having 90%+ signal and 90%+ link quality. I moved the pc into > >> > the same room as the access point and got 100% signal, yet it still > >> > dropped the connection and i still had bad transfer speeds (around > >> > 300kbps). Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good > >> > quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? > >> > > >> > I have changed channels, and found that i get the highest speed on > >> > channel 11. I read on forums to try us robotics drivers (and yes they > >> > work! - they are the same card with a different badge on), and are far > >> > more stable than the D-Link drivers. > >> > > >> > I have now got the speed upto around 14,000kbps peak. To do this i had > >> > to disable the D-Link "Super G mode". Before i disabled this mode (it > >> > was in Dynamic turbo mode) i only got ~6,000kbps. > >> > > >> > However, despite having 90%+ signal and link quality i am not > >> > approaching the 54Mbps limit of the g standard. I appreciate there > >> > will be some overhead for the network protocols which will take away > >> > from this theorectical maximum, but over 50% overhead i find extremely > >> > harsh. I am much happier with this higher speed, but anymore would be > >> > great. > >> > > >> > Can anyone give me some tips to try to increase the speed? D-Link have > >> > just released a new set of drivers for the card which i will try. I > >> > dont want to decrease the encryption length (it is currently WEP > >> > 128bit cypher). > >> > > >> > What real-world speeds have people obtained with their wireless > >> > networks? I would be interested in both 11mpbs and 54mpbs rates. Has > >> > anyone got these 'proprietry' enchancements working, and do they > >> > actually increase the performance? > >> > > >> > Many thanks in advance, > >> > > >> > Chris > >> > >> > > > > > > > |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
"Brian K" <iibntgyea4_ remove_this_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news > On my wired network I get transfers of 240 MB/min for large files like > drive images. What can I expect (as an average) with Wireless G? ~3 mb/s - Wired networks are still the way to go for file transfers. Wireless is fine for work away from the desk or causal surfing. -- Lucas Tam () Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
"Chris" <> wrote in message
news: om... > Why does it transfer so slowly even though there is a good > quality link? Surely speed should be relative to signal strength? Signal strength mainly matters relative to "noise," other signals that interfere with the desired signal. You don't need a lot of strength if there's little interference. Strength can even work against you if you're getting echoes or ghost signals. Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc. |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
"NoNoBadDog!" <mysocks_bjsledge_AT_pixi.com> wrote in message news:... > the 54Mbs/108Mbs rating is for a "canned" network...two units > in an electromagnetically sealed room, with xmitter and rcvr only 1 meter > apart. The numbers are a marketing ply...not what you can expect to ever > get on your LAN. > > Bobby Actually, the 54/108 Mbps rating is the maximum signaling speed, and is not intended to be interpreted as a throughput figure. If your wireless adapter reports a connection speed of 54 Mbps, then within a single frame you are truly sending one bit every 1/54,000,000 seconds. However, not all the bits in the frame are your data; some are overhead. Some whole frames are overhead. And there is dead time between frames that's more overhead. There's also retransmissions due to corrupted frames, and there's frames from competing connections. All those things must be subtracted from the signaling speed to get the throughput speed. Ron Bandes, CCNP, CTT+, etc. |
|