Wireless bridge @ 300mbps with 1 x 10/100 ethernet port.... WTF is the point?

[smitbret]

So I am already using the Linksys WET610N as a bridge for my 5Ghz Wireless N network to stream HD video and my real world results are maxing out at about 80-90mbps. I had recently noticed that the Status Screen of my router was telling me that I had 240mbps to the bridge, but my PS3 was still choking at a 90mbps+ video. That thought has been bothering me on and off since then, but it had no real world affect on me since no Blu-Ray rips are going to top this out and I don't have multiple devices connected to it.

I know better than to really expect 300mbps out of my 300mbps router, but I wondered why I would lose 70% of my bandwidth to overhead and signal loss, especially when I had been able to run my 'G' network at about 80-85% efficiency.

While responding to another thread I checked the specs on the WET610N and discovered that its single ethernet port is only a 10/100. I had always assumed it was gigabit since what is the point of making it 300mbps capable and then handicapping it? Is there something here that I don't understand?

 

[Eug]

300 Mbps WiFi will never reach 300 Mbps or even close to it.

However 150 Mbps WiFi won't reach 100 Mbps either. However, 300 Mbps WiFi has a good chance of maxing out the 100 Mbps LAN port... but not much more.

IOW, even in ideal conditions you shouldn't expect your 300 Mbps WiFi access point to perform much better than 100 Mbps Ethernet.

 

[smitbret]

I don't expect it, to approach 300 mbps. I'm far from a networking genius, so I'm just wondering if the bottleneck is happening at the 10/100 port and not in my wireless network? I'd rather be bottle-necked by the wireless, not by a wired connection.

After a cursory glance, I noticed that almost all bridges are hampered by the 10/100 port. Is this the only way to "unlock" my network if necessary?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833156308

Can a less expensive router with a gigabit port be used?

 

[Nuwave]

When talking about MIMO radios, Companies advertise the total speed of the radio added together.

AP----150Mbps----->Bridge
AP<---150Mbps------Brdige

To the bridge is 150Mbps and the return path which doesn't use the same path is also 150Mbps thus your 300Mbps of bandwidth. That is the theoretical max speed.

100Mbps full duplex ethernet port is similiar

Device----100Mbps--->Bridge
Device<---100Mbps----Bridge

This is simpler to understand because an Ethernet cable has a dedicated send pair and a dedicated receive pair.

The logical diagram above makes it look very similar to the Radio's. For comparisons sake you could say the Ethernet port is 100Mbps full duplex and the radios are 150Mbps full duplex. Or because the are full duplex you could add both of them together and say the wireless is 300Mbps and the wired side is 200Mbps.

So yes the Radios appear to have some wasted bandwidth. But don't fret, 100Mbps full duplex is pretty awesome for wireless at the prices these days. And bridges are capable of doing Several kilometres at those speeds now too, all for about 60 bucks per node.

 

[smitbret]

When talking about MIMO radios, Companies advertise the total speed of the radio added together.

AP----150Mbps----->Bridge
AP<---150Mbps------Brdige

To the bridge is 150Mbps and the return path which doesn't use the same path is also 150Mbps thus your 300Mbps of bandwidth. That is the theoretical max speed.

100Mbps full duplex ethernet port is similiar

Device----100Mbps--->Bridge
Device<---100Mbps----Bridge

This is simpler to understand because an Ethernet cable has a dedicated send pair and a dedicated receive pair.

The logical diagram above makes it look very similar to the Radio's. For comparisons sake you could say the Ethernet port is 100Mbps full duplex and the radios are 150Mbps full duplex. Or because the are full duplex you could add both of them together and say the wireless is 300Mbps and the wired side is 200Mbps.

So yes the Radios appear to have some wasted bandwidth. But don't fret, 100Mbps full duplex is pretty awesome for wireless at the prices these days. And bridges are capable of doing Several kilometres at those speeds now too, all for about 60 bucks per node.

I'm comfortable with that. So how does the math go on the new 450mbps routers coming out? I know it's a third "radio", but how does that work with the formula?

 

[theevilsharpie]

When talking about MIMO radios, Companies advertise the total speed of the radio added together.

AP----150Mbps----->Bridge
AP<---150Mbps------Brdige

To the bridge is 150Mbps and the return path which doesn't use the same path is also 150Mbps thus your 300Mbps of bandwidth. That is the theoretical max speed.

100Mbps full duplex ethernet port is similiar

Device----100Mbps--->Bridge
Device<---100Mbps----Bridge

This is simpler to understand because an Ethernet cable has a dedicated send pair and a dedicated receive pair.

Your explanation is completely wrong. MIMO utilizes RF multipathing to transmit OR receive several discrete streams of data on the same frequency. Two radios within range of each cannot transmit at the same time on the same frequency without interfering with each other. To achieve a full-duplex link over wireless, you would need two radios operating on different frequencies at both endpoints.

I'm comfortable with that. So how does the math go on the new 450mbps routers coming out? I know it's a third "radio", but how does that work with the formula?

MIMO radios utilize an algorithm that can separate data transmitting from physical separate transmitters and receivers provided that the spacing between transmitters is known and configured in such a way as to not interfere with each other. The 450Mbps devices increase their bandwidth by adding a third transmitter and receiver.

 

[smitbret]

So, you're saying that it is theoretically possible to receive 300mbps, then? So, my 10/100 port could be/is the bottleneck?

 

[theevilsharpie]

So, you're saying that it is theoretically possible to receive 300mbps, then? So, my 10/100 port could be/is the bottleneck?

The 300Mbps figure is an absolute theoretical maximum that nobody actually sees in the real world.

In practice? A 100% functional 300Mbps 802.11n wireless link would be operating at a real-world rate of 120-135Mbps, so the 10/100 port could prove to be a slight bottleneck. However, keep in mind that your bridge is designed for use in a home environment, when tends to be unfriendly to microwave RF due to obstructions and interference from other other devices. Linksys engineers probably assumed that few of their customers would ever achieve a realistic wireless bandwidth of above 100Mbps, so opted for a 10/100 port to reduce the cost of the unit.

 

[Eug]

The few Gigabit 300 Mbps 802.11n benchmarks I've seen max out in the range of about 75-95 Mbps, and that's under ideal conditions (eg. same room, 15 feet away, etc.).

So, that's right on par with what the OP is getting.

OP, what video do you have that's 90 Mbps anyway?!?

 

[Golgatha]

The 300Mbps figure is an absolute theoretical maximum that nobody actually sees in the real world.

In practice? A 100% functional 300Mbps 802.11n wireless link would be operating at a real-world rate of 120-135Mbps, so the 10/100 port could prove to be a slight bottleneck. However, keep in mind that your bridge is designed for use in a home environment, when tends to be unfriendly to microwave RF due to obstructions and interference from other other devices. Linksys bean counters probably assumed that few of their customers would ever achieve a realistic wireless bandwidth of above 100Mbps, so opted for a 10/100 port to reduce the cost of the unit.

FTFY

 

[bobdole369]

The few Gigabit 300 Mbps 802.11n benchmarks I've seen max out in the range of about 75-95 Mbps, and that's under ideal conditions (eg. same room, 15 feet away, etc.).

So, that's right on par with what the OP is getting.

OP, what video do you have that's 90 Mbps anyway?!?

1080i rabbit ears OTA HD is 19mbit/s. Even BR caps around 40mbit/s.

2 BR streams? maybe 3? A 4k video?

back on topic I assumed the 100mbit port was there to account for wireless inherent loss. No reason to go gigabit when a typical user won't even get close to saturating (really saturating, with hundreds of transactions, not just 1 stream where the ASIC does nothing but point "Go That Way Packets") I typically get 80-90mbits out of my bridge (moving files around from the mythTV in the living room to the NAS in the bedroom closet or vice versa.) I thought basically doubling G speeds were damn impressive. No the 10/100 port is not a bottleneck. Not a practical one at least, just a theoretical one.

 

[smitbret]

The few Gigabit 300 Mbps 802.11n benchmarks I've seen max out in the range of about 75-95 Mbps, and that's under ideal conditions (eg. same room, 15 feet away, etc.).

So, that's right on par with what the OP is getting.

OP, what video do you have that's 90 Mbps anyway?!?

None really. I was curious about how much I could get on my network so I re-encoded a BR rip of Gran Torino and increased the bitrate just to see what my network could do.

I appreciate the info and most of it is consistent with my experience. I can typically get up to 85-90mbps before I get stuttering, but I always assumed it was the wireless network. While tweaking some things, I had noticed the router reporting a speed of 162mbps so I thought it was strange that I was only getting about half that when streaming video, especially when my G network was running about 80% of advertised speed. So it piqued my curiosity when I saw that the bridge was 10/100. Wouldn't make any difference in my current situation anyway, since my PS3 is also saddled with a 10/100.

I have no intention of replacing anything, since what I have does the job I'm looking for just fine. It was more out of curiosity. I like to stream BR rips which can take up the majority of the bandwidth. I also have a networked drive on my router for sharing things like photos, music and home videos, so I could foresee a situation where the 10/100 would be a problem if I ran from the bridge to a 4-port switch and had multiple connections running off of it. Mostly, I'm just trying to plan my upgrade path for when the situation might call for it. Looks like replacing the bridge would be the first step and then worry about a 450mpbs router, instead of vice versa or just make sure everything has a 5Ghz 'N' adapter...... I'll worry about it when the time comes.

 

[Eug]

If you can consistently stream Blu-ray rips without any hiccups, then you're already doing way better than a lot of people.

 

[smitbret]

I've never had an issue with it at either of the places I've lived in the last couple of years. How does anyone not have enough bandwidth for a simple BR rip unless you're trying to run it 60 feet through a cinder block wall?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I've never had an issue with it at either of the places I've lived in the last couple of years. How does anyone not have enough bandwidth for a simple BR rip unless you're trying to run it 60 feet through a cinder block wall?

I'm using 2.4GHz N, and I have like 20 APs within listening distance. Thankfully, there aren't very many on my channel, but still. I have trouble playing BR rips. My routers run DD-WRT, and usually connect around 130Mbit/sec. But there's a WiFi link between my HTPC and my NAS.

 

[drebo]

801.11n is half-duplex. A 300mbps link is really only rated for 150mbps full duplex connection. You're not likely to ever achieve that, though, due to the inherent loss associated with wireless. Hell, even a lot of carrier-grade wireless APs still only have 100mbps ports.

 

[smitbret]

I'm using 2.4GHz N, and I have like 20 APs within listening distance. Thankfully, there aren't very many on my channel, but still. I have trouble playing BR rips. My routers run DD-WRT, and usually connect around 130Mbit/sec. But there's a WiFi link between my HTPC and my NAS.

Could 5Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz be the difference?

 

[spidey07]

801.11n is half-duplex. A 300mbps link is really only rated for 150mbps full duplex connection. You're not likely to ever achieve that, though, due to the inherent loss associated with wireless. Hell, even a lot of carrier-grade wireless APs still only have 100mbps ports.

That's dumb. With both 2.4 and 5 in use you could easily bottle neck the 100 meg port.

 

[smitbret]

That's dumb. With both 2.4 and 5 in use you could easily bottle neck the 100 meg port.

It can't run both bands simultaneously, though.

 

[spidey07]

It can't run both bands simultaneously, though.

Yes they can, all business class APs can.

 

[Emulex]

my WZR does 16.5-18Megabytes/second (165-180megabits~) - the trendnet 900 does about 250megabits using 60hz channels. you can use two USB sticks to use two connections but it's not a true bond across 2.4/5ghz. but it works if you make it work


Need some SSD to keep that bandwidth saturated.

 

[smitbret]

The WET610N isn't a business class bridge...... Oh, you weren't specifically talking about that one. My bad.

 

[drebo]

That's dumb. With both 2.4 and 5 in use you could easily bottle neck the 100 meg port.

Well, the ones I have experience with (meant to be used with very high gain dish antennas for point-to-point long haul connections or sectors for distribution on a tower) are single-band.