Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
Marcus 'Dr' Dee <doctordee.nosp@m.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The 108Mbit is between the wireless device and the base station. A base
> station can support many simultaneous wireless connections all operating at
> this speed. If all of those devices are not communicating with each other,
> but are instead copying large files to/from the server room, the bottleneck
> will NOT be the 108Mbit of the wireless connection, but the 100Mbit of the
> 100 base-T ethernet.
That 108Mbps (or 54Mbps or 11Mbps) represents the maximum speed of the
wireless *connection* between the access point and any or all of its
clients collectively. Clients must share that bandwidth: two clients
cannot simultaneously communicate with an access point at that maximum
rate.
In addition, the 108 (and 54 and 11) is never achieved in actual
practice. Cut it in half for something more like a real world figure.
Until the next big improvement in wireless comes along, the bottlenecks
will be on the wireless side rather than the 100BaseT links.
> No, I hope to have a single swich in the server room, several 100 base-T
> backbones to separate rooms, and a wireless access point in each of those
> rooms. It's quite coventional, but requires wireless access points that
> have 1000 base-T.
I think you mean 1000BaseT backbones, as the speed of any link, assuming
proper cabling, is limited by the speed of the slower device at either
end of it. In any case, the network you describe doesn't have a true
"backbone" but uses a "star" topology, with a switch in the center and
an access point at the end of every spoke.
> I am not concerned by 'consumer' pricing - pro equipment would be
> acceptable.
I suspect you'll have a hard time finding any single-radio access points
with a Gigabit LAN port. But if money's no problem, why not consult a
wireless networking professional?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram