speed over lan on wireless

[QueBert]

main pc has a Buffalo G router, 2nd system has a Buffalo G USB adapter. Set up basic home networking, xfer speed is like 150-200k across the lan. On main PC I get 400-600k downloads online. the LAN speed should be way higher anyone know what I'm forgetting? I'm having a brain fart today and it's been awhile since I fooled with setting up a wireless LAN.

*edit*

forgot to mention it's connecting at full strength and claims 54Mb

 

[JackMDS]

Is the USB G plugged to the functional USB2 jack?

As a frame of reference if everything configured OK and the Antennae of the devices are set up a free, at 6', in the same room these two devices should yield transfer of about 2.5MB/sec.

Everything else concerning Wireless could be environmental related (obstacles, noise, etc.).

If you do Not want the wireless, a $5 NIC, and a long CAT5e wire would solve the problem.

I would call someone a fool, or get too upset, because of $10 (NIC + wire).

 

[QueBert]

yes the port is USB 2.0, the devices are in different rooms but there's a clear range of sight between both. The router has a high gain antenna and the adapter is supposed to have a better range than most. I reset the router and it's faster did about 55 megs of mp3's in 30 seconds, still seems a bit slow but it should be okay, too lazy to buy a long enough cat5 and make it wired.

 

[spidey07]

55 MB in 30 seconds is quite normal, and quite good for wireless. If you want to improve performance enforce 802.11G ONLY on the access point. Do not allow backward compatability with 802.11b.

 

[QueBert]

is it? oh I thought I should be able to get around 150MB/min , if my speeds are decent I will leave well enough alone, not sure why it was going at 100k/s eairler. Maybe I should set up the ftp again so I can see the speed I'm getting. Thanks for the reply guys.

 

[spidey07]

As jack said 2.5 MBs of actual throughput is as good as it can ever get with 802.11G. With the best of conditions.

You'll get slightly better throughput with 802.11a, around 2.8 MBs. Given how much noise 802.11G has from other devices the 2.5 number is generally lower depending on environment.

 

[ktwebb]

Check out the anandtech homepage for the TrendNet 802.11n draft 2.0 AP review. Pushing 90Mb under ideal conditions, including encrypted traffic. It may be getting closer to upgrade time.

 

[QueBert]

90mb is nice but not faster enough to make me want to ditch what I got and upgrade. I'm usually unrealistic but I want to see wired speeds, or close over wireless then I'll upgrade. Xfering 20 gigs wirelessly took a good chunk of time, but I figured the energy + time involved with going and buying a long enough cable to do it wired would cancel out any time saved.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: QueBert
90mb is nice but not faster enough to make me want to ditch what I got and upgrade. I'm usually unrealistic but I want to see wired speeds, or close over wireless then I'll upgrade.

Not very likely. This "faster than wired" business is pretty hokey when you consider how cheap and ubiquitous gigabit is becoming / has become. Now if you're talking about multi-gigabit wireless, as some are, I'd like a puff too please -- pass it around! Short of that, the "right" answer IMO is gigabit wired, and wireless isn't close. E.g.:

Originally posted by: QueBert
Xfering 20 gigs wirelessly took a good chunk of time, but I figured the energy + time involved with going and buying a long enough cable to do it wired would cancel out any time saved.

Well, I've might have spent enough time tweaking gigabit to earn that comparison, but let's do some math here: If you're running at 60 MB/s gigabit file transfers -- which is actually achievable without special smoke -- 20 GB can be transferred in around 6 minutes. A pedestrian 30 MB/s would take around 12 minutes. Add the purchasing, setup and take down time, and you could still conceivably come ahead of the wireless-g transfer time.

 

[JackMDS]

If you look at History, it is Not hard to see that there are always three tiers of Network performance.

1. What the Data Sheet and manufacturers marketing claim. (Let?s call it 100%).

2. What the commercially inclined reviewers claim. (60-70% of the above 100%)

3. What the millions of average users end up with. (30-60% of the above 100%).

When the dust would settle and 802.11n would become the defcato standard the reality of the End users would be Wireless network that are more expensive then 802.11g and provide twice the performance at best (I.e. the average performance would be around 50-60Mb/sec.)

Do not make a mistake, I think that 50-60Mb/sec. is very good and I am looking forward to the standard to come out and start using it.

On the other hand, there is No point to get involved in "Major Delusions" because of the ?Borderline Personality Disorder? that infest current day marketing.