|
|
Why data rate of 802.11g network adapters is much slower than specified?
 I am trying to transfer data between my laptop (OS XP Professional SP2, Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, 1 GB RAM) and my desktop (Vista Ultimate, Intel Quad Core 2.4 GHz, 3GB RAM) using wireless communication since I don’t have adequate cables.
Both computers have a Broadcom 802.11g network adapter and they connect to the outside world via a wireless router (Belkin wireless G router, 2.4 GHz, also 802.11g).
The problem is that I only get data rates of 300-600 kB/s (it oscillates a lot), when in theory one should get either 2.37 MB/s or 6.75 MB/s (depending on whether nominal rates or raw data rates apply).
I did the same exercise without involving the router (i.e. by creating an ad-hoc wireless connection), but there’s hardly any difference.
As a side note, all antennas are less than 3 meters appart and “see” each other (no walls or other obstacles).
Please tell me what I am doing wrong… or is this the rate I should expect?
Thank you for the suggestions & comments posted so far. From what you say I understand the data rates I am getting are normal for this scenario…
I have a standard Ethernet cable, but I remember people saying it’s required to have an “inverted” Ethernet cable (i.e. a cable where the wiring is mirrored or something like that) for the peer-to-peer connection to work. Is that true?
Why data rate of 802.11g network adapters is much slower than specified?
 I am trying to transfer data between my laptop (OS XP Professional SP2, Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, 1 GB RAM) and my desktop (Vista Ultimate, Intel Quad Core 2.4 GHz, 3GB RAM) using wireless communication since I don’t have adequate cables.
Both computers have a Broadcom 802.11g network adapter and they connect to the outside world via a wireless router (Belkin wireless G router, 2.4 GHz, also 802.11g).
The problem is that I only get data rates of 300-600 kB/s (it oscillates a lot), when in theory one should get either 2.37 MB/s or 6.75 MB/s (depending on whether nominal rates or raw data rates apply).
I did the same exercise without involving the router (i.e. by creating an ad-hoc wireless connection), but there’s hardly any difference.
As a side note, all antennas are less than 3 meters appart and “see” each other (no walls or other obstacles).
Please tell me what I am doing wrong… or is this the rate I should expect?
Thank you for the suggestions & comments posted so far. From what you say I understand the data rates I am getting are normal for this scenario…
I have a standard Ethernet cable, but I remember people saying it’s required to have an “inverted” Ethernet cable (i.e. a cable where the wiring is mirrored or something like that) for the peer-to-peer connection to work. Is that true?
|
http://www.TelServGroup.com NJ Integrated T1s, DS3, Private Line, Ethernet, E1, VoIP BEST DEAL IN QUEENS, LOWEST PRICED INTERNET BROOKLYN NY
________________
http://bestt1deal.com Manhattan T1 deal, New York T3 internet, Colocation, SIP, Ethernet, MPLS, Voice, Data, and Managed Network Solutions, Best Deal T3 service, T3 internet
 cheapestPCrepair.com local computer repair lowest price fastest turnaround amazing customer service cheapest laptop and computer repair!
Iowa Computer Repair.com We are your total computer repair center. spyware, malware, virus, blue screen of  death (BSOD)Cracked LCD screen, broken laptop DC jack, Slow computer, home and business networking Serving Des Moines and central Iowa including West Des Moines, Altoona, Ankeny, Ames, Beaverdale, Bondurant, Carlisle, Clive, Grimes, Johnston, Nevada, Norwalk, Pleasant Hill, Polk City, Runnels, Saylorville, Urbandale, Waukee, Windsor Heights, including Polk, Dallas, and Story County since 1995. 515-966-4427
|
because the speeds posted are maximum speeds. in the real world those kinds of speeds will never be realized
wt u get is quite a fast speed dt u should realize!
wireless uses shared bandwidth. So your post rate is best case sceranio with only one computer using the wireless router. Since you are using the router with 2 computers then it effectively cuts your bandwidth down to half, plus you have to figure in packet loss and overhead.
If you want the best possible throughput then you should set up a peer-to-peer network. It can be done without a router, without an internet connection, and with short cables.
This is how you do it
connect the laptop and the desktop together with one single ethernet cable. You will have to manual assign each computer with an ip address, a subnet, and a gateway (go into network places, and look at your network connections. you will see your cards, you can click on properties and look at tcp/ip)
So computer one will have a unique ip address, the same subnet, and the same gateway as computer two
So it will look something like this
computer 1
192.168.1.1
subnet 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.0
computer 2
192.168.1.2
same subnet/gateway
Then make sure you are sharing two folders so you can transfer.
at the run command type \computer2 name (you can find that in system properities under computer name)your shared folder
then you can transfer fast. (probably about 30-40 mb/min)
The simple answer is never simple and rarely the answer. Network peak capacity is just a number pulled from pure theory and the blue sky. 150 KbpS or 300 KbpS sounds like there is a lot of other CPU usage in one or both computers. Assuming that there are no network collisions from other services, you could expect about 56% of capacity without traffic shaping. So, for 2.37 MbpS, expect 1.32 MbpS in Simplex communication or half of that (660 KbpS) in full Duplex.