[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - router performance

[Bob Kline]

Reality is a nominal 16 Mbps connection,
and the ability upload and download files
of a known size to a web hosting site.
That and a watch adds up to not much
room to hide - just fundamental measurements.
It wouldn't have been worth mentioning
if there wasn't this dramatic difference in
performance.

Agreed about the range, but I'm covering
the whole house with 802.11g, and hopefully
not the neighbors too.  So it all works for me.

For some users, this can be a useful
improvement in bandwidth just by shedding
a feature they don't really need.  I'm guessing
that not too many devices are just 802.11b
any more.

Of course it's the PC where the bandwidth
matters most, and not the gadgets that
use 100Kbps or so.

   -- Bob


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's a disconnect from reality going on here. Unless you've got an
> internet connection with a transfer rate reliably higher than about
> 5-11Mb/s, going 802.11g-only isn't going to have an Internet-related
> impact. It's connection-throughput-dependent, not ISP-dependent.
>
> However, going g-only does have advantages, as long as all the devices
> in question support it.  Data sent on a lower-bitrate wifi connection
> will occupy an 802.11 cell's airtime longer than a higher-bitrate one.
>
> Think of it like attaching 10base-T and 100base-T devices to the same
> hub. (Hub, not switch, not router.) The 10base-T transmitting device
> will occupy the hub's bus longer for the same packet size--and there's
> still a minimum packet size: the packet header.
>
> Different devices, even if they support both 802.11b and 802.11g will
> default to eithers' available connection rates based on a number of
> factors such as signal strength and quality, but each device will have
> its own algorithm for making that decision. A single device choosing a
> lower bitrate will cause a reduction in cell bandwidth. How much a
> reduction will depend on the mix of packet counts and sizes for the
> network's workload.
>
> There will be trade-offs, of course. With 802.11g and an elimination
> of the lower available bitrates, you'll see a reduction in your wifi
> network range based on the layout of the structure it sits in.
>
> Your mileage will vary. Test it yourself.
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Adam Erickson <adam at openfad.com> wrote:
> > Has anyone tested this on home modems for verizon/comcast/at&t?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> A friend read something in some Intel
> >> literature which mentioned that router
> >> performance could be improved by
> >> selection just, say, G, rather than B/G.
> >>
> >> I tried this on my Linksys wireless route,
> >> selecting G only.
> >>
> >> The results were astounding.  A 35%
> >> increase in uploading speed, and a
> >> 25% increase in the download speed,
> >> as measured by http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
> >> late at night.  In fact, I get the faster
> >> upload speed doing the test any time
> >> of the day.
> >>
> >> Why?  i.e., what might be behind this?
> >> I have no wireless devices that use B
> >> anyway, and no real reason to have
> >> the B/G option, which is the default.
> >>
> >> So the router spends that much effort
> >> trying to decide whether to use B or G?
> >>
> >> The bottom line is that I've apparently
> >> lost a lot of performance for a long time......
> >>
> >>
> >>    -- Bob
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> >> believed to be clean.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> grlug mailing list
> >> grlug at grlug.org
> >> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >>
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > grlug mailing list
> > grlug at grlug.org
> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >
>
>
>
> --
> :wq
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20101008/9fa48c2b/attachment.html>