Quote:
Originally Posted by caph
I use 802.11g on a 20Mb connection and the lowest speed I get at all times is 19.5Mbit with average ping times of around 16ms. There is no problem with wireless speed and reliability if you get a good channel and a good UBR. Wired is loads better for LAN, but currently in the UK it makes sod all difference for cable WAN access.
|
Although it is worth noting that there *are* other factors that will affect Wifi performance. These can be other radio/electrical sources, the presence of metal structures (such as electricity pylons), and even the makeup of the building the WiFi is in. If the building has thick walls, or a lot of metal in the construction, it can severely cripple Wifi. For instance, we are rolling WiFi out across the buildings where I work. The buildings are several hundred years old and have walls up to 4 feet thick. Where we get coverage, we get good speed (tested by downloading files). But, the average range of each access point (we have several) is about 10-20 metres.
It's worth noting that at home, I have two wireless networks. One, operating at 2.4GHz for any devices limited to G class, and one operating at 5GHz for any devices capable of N class speed. While I can get 20 megs relatively easily from either my LAN or the Internet, I can only download stuff at the same speed from the router hosted the N network (an Apple Time Capsule) or from the PC hooked up to the Time Capsule via a gig ethernet connection.
The same router will happily send stuff out via the Ethenet connection at speeds a lot higher than it will via wireless, so I know it's not the router CPU slowing the connection.
My point is that whatever protocol is in use, it may not be feasable to expect high speeds from wireless networks. There are too many variables. You want high speed? Go for Ethenet. You want High Speed without the hassle of having to run cables throughout your house, go for powerline Ethernet.