This relates to just how to arrange wifi vs. wired ethernet in our home office.
We just had our home office redecorated, new lights, and a floor pocket under the desks to supply power and network connections. Before the work was done wifi was enabled but not used by the three desktops here. I used a wired switch instead. When we decamped to another room to allow the redecoration (good, that's the last of the Artex covered up), I enabled wifi on the moved desktops and didn't cable them up to the switch at all. The router stayed in the office and the decorator/electrician worked around it. Performance from any of the moved desktops to the Internet was completely satisfactory, so much
so that for the move of the kit back into the shiny new office, I considered not wiring them via the switch at all.
However: one thing I did notice is that via Wifi, performance for moving a file or folder of files between desktops using wifi is really poor. It works, but quite slowly. Is this just because of contention for the airwave during such transfers? Would it be better to wire one of the desktops to the router, and leave the others on wifi? If so ISTM that would most likely be the file server, which nine times out of ten is the source of or destination for such transfers.
This relates to just how to arrange wifi vs. wired ethernet in our home office.
We just had our home office redecorated, new lights, and a floor pocket under the desks to supply power and network connections. Before the work was done wifi was enabled but not used by the three desktops here. I used a wired switch instead. When we decamped to another room to allow the redecoration (good, that's the last of the Artex covered up),
However: one thing I did notice is that via Wifi, performance for moving a file or folder of files between desktops using wifi is really poor. It works, but quite slowly. Is this just because of contention for the airwave during such transfers? Would it be better to wire one of the desktops to the router, and leave the others on wifi? If so ISTM that would most likely be the file server, which nine times out of ten is the source of or destination for such transfers.
There's no harm hardwiring things if that's feasible: a wire will always be more reliable than wifi, and generally faster in all but ideal conditions.
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
This relates to just how to arrange wifi vs. wired ethernet in our home
office.
We just had our home office redecorated, new lights, and a floor pocket under
the desks to supply power and network connections. Before the work was done >> wifi was enabled but not used by the three desktops here. I used a wired
switch instead. When we decamped to another room to allow the redecoration >> (good, that's the last of the Artex covered up),
They didn't cover it up with foil-backed plasterboard or insulation did
they? That wouldn't have done much for the radio signals.
What is your construction like?
In article <pzx*3sMTy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
There's no harm hardwiring things if that's feasible: a wire will always be >> more reliable than wifi, and generally faster in all but ideal conditions.
that depends on the wire and the wifi.
gigabit will generally be slower than modern wifi. only 2.5g/5g/10g
will be faster. for now.
In real life, wire will normally be much better than WiFi.
I know this
is contentious, and "nospam" has a different experience.
it's simple math, and is shown in numerous router benchmarks.
On 21 Jul 2022 at 18:54:39 BST, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
This relates to just how to arrange wifi vs. wired ethernet in our home
office.
We just had our home office redecorated, new lights, and a floor pocket under
the desks to supply power and network connections. Before the work was done >>> wifi was enabled but not used by the three desktops here. I used a wired >>> switch instead. When we decamped to another room to allow the redecoration >>> (good, that's the last of the Artex covered up),
They didn't cover it up with foil-backed plasterboard or insulation did
they? That wouldn't have done much for the radio signals.
What is your construction like?
It's a 30s villa type of house. The room I moved the kit to is directly below the office so there was a good signal for the 5Gbps (2.4 not enabled). Only a wooden floor and ceiling to go through.
So, with the router upstairs and everything else downstairs, this worked just fine:
Mini <--- 5Gbps wifi ---> router <--- FTTC ---> Internet
whereas this:
Mini <--- 5Gbps wifi ---> router <--- 5Gbps wifi --- > Mini
was quite slow. My question really is whether there is an obvious reason that this should be so.
I could wire everything but that means using a switch and thus extra cables as
I don't have enough ports on the router to accommodate everything.
In real life, things are often different. Benchmarks are perhaps not
very relevant.
On 21 Jul 2022 at 18:54:39 BST, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
This relates to just how to arrange wifi vs. wired ethernet in our home
office.
We just had our home office redecorated, new lights, and a floor pocket under
the desks to supply power and network connections. Before the work was done >>> wifi was enabled but not used by the three desktops here. I used a wired >>> switch instead. When we decamped to another room to allow the redecoration >>> (good, that's the last of the Artex covered up),
They didn't cover it up with foil-backed plasterboard or insulation did
they? That wouldn't have done much for the radio signals.
What is your construction like?
It's a 30s villa type of house. The room I moved the kit to is directly below the office so there was a good signal for the 5Gbps (2.4 not enabled). Only a wooden floor and ceiling to go through.
So, with the router upstairs and everything else downstairs, this worked just fine:
Mini <--- 5Gbps wifi ---> router <--- FTTC ---> Internet
whereas this:
Mini <--- 5Gbps wifi ---> router <--- 5Gbps wifi --- > Mini
was quite slow. My question really is whether there is an obvious reason that this should be so.
On 21/07/2022 19:52, TimS wrote:
On 21 Jul 2022 at 18:54:39 BST, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
This relates to just how to arrange wifi vs. wired ethernet in our home >>>> office.
We just had our home office redecorated, new lights, and a floor pocket under
the desks to supply power and network connections. Before the work was done
wifi was enabled but not used by the three desktops here. I used a wired >>>> switch instead. When we decamped to another room to allow the redecoration >>>> (good, that's the last of the Artex covered up),
They didn't cover it up with foil-backed plasterboard or insulation did
they? That wouldn't have done much for the radio signals.
What is your construction like?
It's a 30s villa type of house. The room I moved the kit to is directly below
the office so there was a good signal for the 5Gbps (2.4 not enabled). Only a
wooden floor and ceiling to go through.
So, with the router upstairs and everything else downstairs, this worked just
fine:
Mini <--- 5Gbps wifi ---> router <--- FTTC ---> Internet
whereas this:
Mini <--- 5Gbps wifi ---> router <--- 5Gbps wifi --- > Mini
was quite slow. My question really is whether there is an obvious reason that
this should be so.
When you say "quite slow" do you mean about half the speed?
I'd say at best 10% of the wired connection speed.
I'd say at best 10% of the wired connection speed.
That would be 100Mbps, which is an unsurprising rate for wifi in real world conditions if you haven't put much thought into antenna placement.
What kind of router do you have, and how old is it?
I'd say at best 10% of the wired connection speed.
OK - just tried copying a folder of some 250 files/folders, total 5Mbytes of stuff from my desktop to an internal SSD on the server. Both machines within 5
ft of the router. Using wifi this took almost 40 seconds.
I shall do some more speed tests but not tonight.
On 21 Jul 2022 at 21:30:12 BST, Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
On 21/07/2022 19:52, TimS wrote:
On 21 Jul 2022 at 18:54:39 BST, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >>> wrote:
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
If you hold down Option and click on the wifi icon at the top right of the Mac screen, you can get some stats for how good your connection is. If you move computers around you can see if they change.
On 21 Jul 2022 at 18:54:39 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
If you hold down Option and click on the wifi icon at the top right of the >> Mac screen, you can get some stats for how good your connection is. If you >> move computers around you can see if they change.
I did not know that. Thank you.
Whether I *understand* the data, that's another matter.
TimS wrote:
On 21 Jul 2022 at 21:30:12 BST, Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote: >>
On 21/07/2022 19:52, TimS wrote:
On 21 Jul 2022 at 18:54:39 BST, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >>>> wrote:
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
Another disadvantage of WiFi is that it is inherently half-duplex. A
packet must be transmitted completely before the radio hardware can be switched to receive. Some point-to-point wireless links can use one
channel for transmit, and another - widely separated in frequency - for receive; this allows full duplex operation. I think some mesh systems
use this mechanism to implement the backhaul between the mesh nodes and
their controller.
By contrast wired Ethernet using UTP cable is inherently full-duplex.
This was not true in the days of 10base5 and 10base2 co-ax cable.
The network switch can affect this: clearly it must have sufficient performance to handle many traffic streams simultaneously.
WiFi operates in store-and-forward mode: the whole packet must be
completely received before it can be wirelessly transmitted to the next
node - so this will adversely affect performance where several clients require communication with a server. Some WiFi systems implement MIMO
by using multiple transmitters and receivers improve performance
By comparison network switches generally wait only to determine the
packet's target address before starting to transmit the packet onwards.
The latency is thus reduced to a small proportion of the packet transmit time.
For copying the folder I previously referred to from one Mini to another, we have these timings:
1) wirelessly - no wired connections, so data flows via the router (at least, I assume it does) - 40 secs
2) Wiring the destination Mini to the router and turning off its wifi - 40 secs
3) Wiring both Minis via the router (so no wifi) - 18 secs
4) Wiring both Minis and the router to a Netgear FS105 - 18 secs
Remember I'm not copying a single 5Mbytes file; I'm copying 250 or so files/folders which aggregate to 5Mbytes, so I imagine there's some file system overhead there.
I think Graham's comments indicate why wired is the way I will go. The router,
BTW, is a ZyXEL VMG8924-B10A.
Another disadvantage of WiFi is that it is inherently half-duplex.
For copying the folder I previously referred to from one Mini to another, we have these timings:
1) wirelessly - no wired connections, so data flows via the router (at least, I assume it does) - 40 secs
2) Wiring the destination Mini to the router and turning off its wifi - 40 secs
3) Wiring both Minis via the router (so no wifi) - 18 secs
4) Wiring both Minis and the router to a Netgear FS105 - 18 secs
Remember I'm not copying a single 5Mbytes file; I'm copying 250 or so files/folders which aggregate to 5Mbytes, so I imagine there's some file system overhead there.
I think Graham's comments indicate why wired is the way I will go. The router,
BTW, is a ZyXEL VMG8924-B10A.
On 22/07/2022 10:43, TimS wrote:
For copying the folder I previously referred to from one Mini to another, we >> have these timings:
1) wirelessly - no wired connections, so data flows via the router (at least,
I assume it does) - 40 secs
2) Wiring the destination Mini to the router and turning off its wifi - 40 >> secs
3) Wiring both Minis via the router (so no wifi) - 18 secs
4) Wiring both Minis and the router to a Netgear FS105 - 18 secs
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi
symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
And while you're there, what does it say for Tx Rate?
On 22 Jul 2022 at 15:53:11 BST, Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 10:43, TimS wrote:
For copying the folder I previously referred to from one Mini to another, we
have these timings:
1) wirelessly - no wired connections, so data flows via the router (at least,
I assume it does) - 40 secs
2) Wiring the destination Mini to the router and turning off its wifi - 40 >>> secs
3) Wiring both Minis via the router (so no wifi) - 18 secs
4) Wiring both Minis and the router to a Netgear FS105 - 18 secs
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi
symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Yes it does.
And while you're there, what does it say for Tx Rate?
877Mbps.
And while you're there, what does it say for Tx Rate?
877Mbps.
On 2022-07-23, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi
symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get
hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what
it all means.
<https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/the-80211ac-wifi-standard-explained/>
Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi
symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get
hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what
it all means.
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi
symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2022-07-23, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi
symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless
connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get
hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what
it all means.
<https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/the-80211ac-wifi-standard-explained/>
Thanks
On 23/07/2022 10:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.invalid> wrote:You might want to download NetSpot which will show signal strengths etc and also if there is anyone else locally using the same wifi channels as you.
On 2022-07-23, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:Thanks
Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi >>>>> symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless
connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get >>>> hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what >>>> it all means.
<https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/the-80211ac-wifi-standard-explained/> >>
David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2022 10:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.invalid> wrote:You might want to download NetSpot which will show signal strengths etc and >> also if there is anyone else locally using the same wifi channels as you.
On 2022-07-23, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:Thanks
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi >>>>>> symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless
connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get >>>>> hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what >>>>> it all means.
<https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/the-80211ac-wifi-standard-explained/> >>>
I guess you’re talking about the macOS version? The iOS version review on the App Store is very damning :(
On 24/07/2022 11:06, Alan B wrote:
David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:Definitely!
On 23/07/2022 10:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:I guess you’re talking about the macOS version? The iOS version review on >> the App Store is very damning :(
Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.invalid> wrote:You might want to download NetSpot which will show signal strengths etc and >>> also if there is anyone else locally using the same wifi channels as you. >>
On 2022-07-23, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi >>>>>>> symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless >>>>>> connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get >>>>>> hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what >>>>>> it all means.
<https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/the-80211ac-wifi-standard-explained/>
Thanks
It seems to give quite a comprehensive breakdown of everything local.
David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2022 11:06, Alan B wrote:
David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:Definitely!
On 23/07/2022 10:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:I guess you’re talking about the macOS version? The iOS version review on >>> the App Store is very damning :(
Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.invalid> wrote:You might want to download NetSpot which will show signal strengths etc and
On 2022-07-23, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[...]
On the source Mini, with the wifi connected, option click on the wifi >>>>>>>> symbol in the menu bar and check that PHY Mode is 802.11ac and not 802.11n.
Thanks for that tip, I have been plagued with intermittent wireless >>>>>>> connection between a MacBook and the router and didn't know how to get >>>>>>> hold of the information I needed. Now it just remains to find out what >>>>>>> it all means.
<https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/the-80211ac-wifi-standard-explained/>
Thanks
also if there is anyone else locally using the same wifi channels as you. >>>
It seems to give quite a comprehensive breakdown of everything local.
Yes I haven’t had it on my systems for a while but installed on my MacBook Pro this morning and it works well as you say. I then thought about installing it on my iPhone until I saw the review!
I did try it on the ipad...Definitely!You might want to download NetSpot which will show signal strengths
etc and
also if there is anyone else locally using the same wifi channels
as you.
I guess you’re talking about the macOS version? The iOS version
review on
the App Store is very damning :(
It seems to give quite a comprehensive breakdown of everything local.
Yes I haven’t had it on my systems for a while but installed on my
MacBook
Pro this morning and it works well as you say. I then thought about
installing it on my iPhone until I saw the review!
:-(
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:22:35 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,153 |