Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PING: Jeff Liebermann - Netgear WGT634U Storage Router Info!

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 1:11:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hi Jeff,

What we were talking about last week re the WGT634Us...

Well, after promising trials I bought a couple and they work fine
here. The USB storage feature is great because it means I can have
24/7 FTP without leaving a PC running all the time. However, I had a
few probs setting up the first USB disk. For details - please see my
other post in alt.comp.networking.routers.

BTW...

Netgear DG834G = ADSL on ch12
Netgear WGT634U 1 = Cable 1 on ch6
Netgear WGT634U 2 = Cable 2 on ch1

Adapters are Netgear WG111 USB - a mixture of v.1 & 2

Great signals and everything working fine in my little reinforced
concrete domain - including FTP. Netgear sure is the way to go. Thanks
again for all your help.

Jim
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 6:23:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:11:08 GMT, Jim Donald
<Jim.Donald251@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>What we were talking about last week re the WGT634Us...

Yep.

>Well, after promising trials I bought a couple and they work fine
>here. The USB storage feature is great because it means I can have
>24/7 FTP without leaving a PC running all the time. However, I had a
>few probs setting up the first USB disk. For details - please see my
>other post in alt.comp.networking.routers.

Heh-heh. It's amazing how many devices are fixed with a power cycle.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.networking.rout...
It fairly difficult to design an incompatible USB 2.0 device, but
given sufficient creativity, some manufacturers seem to have
succeeded.

>Netgear DG834G = ADSL on ch12
>Netgear WGT634U 1 = Cable 1 on ch6
>Netgear WGT634U 2 = Cable 2 on ch1

That will work. I still can't figure out why you need all those
service. Congratulations and I'm jealous. Thanks for the report.

>Adapters are Netgear WG111 USB - a mixture of v.1 & 2
>
>Great signals and everything working fine in my little reinforced
>concrete domain - including FTP. Netgear sure is the way to go. Thanks
>again for all your help.

I didn't see much in the way of security in the WGT634U manual for
ftp. Unless I missed something, the ftp server is wide open. Is this
the way you want it?

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice Skype: JeffLiebermann
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
# http://802.11junk.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# jeffl@cruzio.com
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 12:45:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

>I didn't see much in the way of security in the WGT634U manual for
>ftp. Unless I missed something, the ftp server is wide open. Is this
>the way you want it?

You can password protect the shared folders. But it isn't a true FTP
server insofar as no one can write to it over the Internet (only over
LAN). Also - if the disk is partitioned NTFS then it's 'read only' too
- whether on LAN on WAN.

I think Netgear have missed an opportunity here, because I guess there
will be lots of people who would like an FTP server without having to
run a dedicated PC (with all the noise and everything).

Meanwhile, the WGT634U suits me okay because if somebody needs a
certain file(s) I can just dump it onto the router and let them
download when they please. No more CD/DVD burning.

Further, it appears that I live in a technologically sparse area. As
far as I can tell there isn't another wireless network within at least
a square mile.

However, I am still a little perplexed. On ONE of the networks I
appear to be getting an 'excellent' signal (48-54Mbps) but when I
start to FTP on the LAN the stream drops to 1Mbps. At other times the
transfers start fairly fast but then drop down to 1Mbps again. I'm
using Netgear WG111 with the WGT634U and it only happens on this one
machine and this one Network. Also - this usually happens when I'm
trying to transfer a group of files. The first few files start at
around 36Mbps but then everything just slows to a snail's pace.

I've tried re-siting the router and my antenna but to no avail.

Would there be any advantage in upgrading to a faster USB adapter on
the troublesome machine - something that could take advantage of the
WGT634U's 108Mbps capabilities? Is 108 Mbps actually achievable? It
seems a lot for wireless.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 12:45:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:45:53 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I think Netgear have missed an opportunity here, because I guess there
>will be lots of people who would like an FTP server without having to
>run a dedicated PC (with all the noise and everything).

Well, I don't think the ftp server is the popular feature. Methinks a
web server would make more sense.

>However, I am still a little perplexed. On ONE of the networks I
>appear to be getting an 'excellent' signal (48-54Mbps) but when I
>start to FTP on the LAN the stream drops to 1Mbps.

Let's see if I got this right. When you connect via wireless, you get
a 48-54Mbit/sec association. However, when you start to move data, it
drops to 1Mbit/sec. Well, the first thing to try is turn off all the
other wireless devices and see if they're part of the problem.
Probably not, but it pays to make sure.

There was a also a nasy bug in the Intel 2200BG driver that caused
everything to slow down to 1Mbit/sec and not recover.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/br...
>

>At other times the
>transfers start fairly fast but then drop down to 1Mbps again. I'm
>using Netgear WG111 with the WGT634U and it only happens on this one
>machine and this one Network.

My seat of the pants guess is that it's the client radio or driver.
If this client radio works with the other WGT634U, then it's certainly
the WG111 or the driver. Try it.

>Also - this usually happens when I'm
>trying to transfer a group of files. The first few files start at
>around 36Mbps but then everything just slows to a snail's pace.
>
>I've tried re-siting the router and my antenna but to no avail.
>
>Would there be any advantage in upgrading to a faster USB adapter on
>the troublesome machine

No.

>- something that could take advantage of the
>WGT634U's 108Mbps capabilities? Is 108 Mbps actually achievable? It
>seems a lot for wireless.

I've never seen thruput over about 50Mbits/sec. The thruput is
usually about half the connection speed. 54Mbits/sec maxes out at
about 30Mbits/sec. With 108Mbit/sec connection, you'll get about
50Mbits/sec thruput. However, the range will be very limited.

his is stolen from an Atheros PDF at:
http://www.atheros.com/pt/atheros_range_whitepaper.pdf
with some additions and corrections by me.

Non-overlapping Modulation Max Max Max
Channels ------- | Link TCP UDP
| | | | |
802.11b 3 CCK 11 5.9 7.1
802.11g (with
802.11b) 3 OFDM/CCK 54 14.4 19.5
802.11g only 3 OFDM 54 24.4 30.5
802.11g turbo 1 OFDM 108 42.9 54.8
802.11a 13 OFDM 54 24.4 30.5
802.11a turbo 6 OFDM 108 42.9 54.8


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 12:45:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:06:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>My seat of the pants guess is that it's the client radio or driver.
>If this client radio works with the other WGT634U, then it's certainly
>the WG111 or the driver. Try it.

Argh. Remind me to proofread my junk before I post it, not after.

What I meant was that if the WG111 fails in the same way with the
other two wireless routers, then it's probably something wrong on the
computah or WG111. However, if only this one combination fails, then
it's probably something odd about the WGT634U. Try all the
combinations of client radio and wireless router and see if you can
see a pattern.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 2:00:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:45:53 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>
>You can password protect the shared folders. But it isn't a true FTP
>server insofar as no one can write to it over the Internet (only over
>LAN). Also - if the disk is partitioned NTFS then it's 'read only' too
>- whether on LAN on WAN.

Correction.

Actually - and this is weird...

Despite what it says in the manual you CAN write to the
router-attached storage device over the Net. I've just been trying it.
And it works fine.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 8:17:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:24:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:06:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>My seat of the pants guess is that it's the client radio or driver.
>>If this client radio works with the other WGT634U, then it's certainly
>>the WG111 or the driver. Try it.
>
>Argh. Remind me to proofread my junk before I post it, not after.
>
>What I meant was that if the WG111 fails in the same way with the
>other two wireless routers, then it's probably something wrong on the
>computah or WG111. However, if only this one combination fails, then
>it's probably something odd about the WGT634U. Try all the
>combinations of client radio and wireless router and see if you can
>see a pattern.

Thanks again for sharing your expertise Jeff. This reader cetrainly is
much obliged for the time and trouble you have gone to here.
Additionally, those links made most interesting reading.

So...

108Mbps is a bit of a marketing thing, huh? I thought as much. Yet
50Mbps isn't too bad for me - or even 30Mbps. I had no idea that
'connection speed' and 'data speed' would be different. When the tray
icon said 'signal excellent - connected at 54Mbps' I just assumed that
would also be the data throughput speed. Doh...;-)

With regard to my problem. As a last resort (before doing anything
major) I took my life in my hands and scaled a very shaky set of
ladders to place the client antenna much higher up on the wall near
the ceiling. I stuck the base on with some Blu-Tack rather than the
supplied Velcro strip and now my speeds are around the correct levels
you mentioned. Not 54Mbps - but between 15 and 30 most times.

Also - would I be right in thinking that repositioning one's antenna
and/or router even 'slightly' (by a mere few inches) can make a BIG
difference to performance? Or is my improvement just a fluke?

Otherwise your alternative advice is filed away for future reference.

Further - I agree with you about the web server thing? One of THOSE in
a router would be really cool.

Thanks again.

P.S. Despite what it says in the WGT634U manual, with the right
previously-set permissions, one CAN actually 'write' to any attached
storage device over the Internet. I tried it and it works fine.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 8:17:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 04:17:26 GMT, Jim Donald <jim_donald@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>108Mbps is a bit of a marketing thing, huh?

Larger numbers are better, according to marketing. What they don't
tell you is that there's LOTS of overhead to Wi-Fi and you'll be lucky
to get about half that in thruput, and only at limited ranges. That's
why I always use "connection speed" and "thruput" to distinguish
between the numbers.

You might wanna download and read:
| http://www.intel.com/business/bss/infrastructure/wirele...
which is Intel's instructions on how to setup a wireless network.
Table 4-7 is a chart of range versus connection speeds. I don't agree
with their numbers, but they have the right idea. Divide the range in
ft by 1/3 to get a more realistic value.

>I thought as much. Yet
>50Mbps isn't too bad for me - or even 30Mbps. I had no idea that
>'connection speed' and 'data speed' would be different. When the tray
>icon said 'signal excellent - connected at 54Mbps' I just assumed that
>would also be the data throughput speed. Doh...;-)

Well, you're learning. It's common knowledge. See:
| http://www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article60-page5....
It's a "walk test" comparing thruput with and without Super-G. Note
that the higher speeds are fairly well maintained throughout the
entire 300ft (center of graph) walk. I've done similar tests and
gotten similar results. The higher speed devices are generally better
overall, but not always at any given point or location.

>With regard to my problem. As a last resort (before doing anything
>major) I took my life in my hands and scaled a very shaky set of
>ladders to place the client antenna much higher up on the wall near
>the ceiling. I stuck the base on with some Blu-Tack rather than the
>supplied Velcro strip and now my speeds are around the correct levels
>you mentioned. Not 54Mbps - but between 15 and 30 most times.

Bingo. Now I know what was happening when your speed was dropping to
1Mbit/sec. You were dealing with indoor reflections and multipath.
These tend to be fatal to thruput. They reflected signals arrive at
inconvenient times (between packets), smear data, mangle timing, and
generally create packet errors. The access point defends itself by
slowing down, which increases the receiver sensitivity and reduces the
effects of multipath. You probably could have moved around a bit and
improved the situation.

>Also - would I be right in thinking that repositioning one's antenna
>and/or router even 'slightly' (by a mere few inches) can make a BIG
>difference to performance? Or is my improvement just a fluke?

Yes, antenna location and position is very critical to proper
operation. The idea is to get the best direct path. If you're
dealing with reflections, things will not work well. If you're in a
null, where two or more signals cancel, then moving 1/4 wavelength in
any direction will eliminate the effects. 1/4 wavelength is about
3cm.

>Otherwise your alternative advice is filed away for future reference.
>
>Further - I agree with you about the web server thing? One of THOSE in
>a router would be really cool.

It would be fairly easy to implement as the router already has a web
server in firmware used for configuration. Personally, I would prefer
to see the USB memory used for log file collection, authentication,
and SNMP based performance data collection, but that would probably be
to weird for a consumer product. Still, a "personal web server" would
be handy.

>P.S. Despite what it says in the WGT634U manual, with the right
>previously-set permissions, one CAN actually 'write' to any attached
>storage device over the Internet. I tried it and it works fine.

Yech. Passwords passed in the clear with no encryption. Easily
sniffed. No SFTP (secure ftp) or SCP (secure copy). No logging or
ftpaccess. Are you sure you wanna run such a crude ftp server?

Incidentally, on the password issue, one of my clueless customers
insisted on using the same password for everything. His POP3 password
for email got sniffed by someone. With the email address, he figured
out my clients eBay account name. The password worked. Fortunately,
his Paypal account used a different password. If you do play the
password game, kindly use a different password on everything,
especially easily sniffed passwords such as found on simple ftp
servers.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 7, 2005 6:26:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

>Yech. Passwords passed in the clear with no encryption. Easily
>sniffed. No SFTP (secure ftp) or SCP (secure copy). No logging or
>ftpaccess. Are you sure you wanna run such a crude ftp server?

Well, I suppose it'll be okay for the low-grade stuff I have. Nothing
worth stealing really. Just some family photos and a few MP3s. But I
take your point. It's not exactly secure.

Thanks again for all your wisdom Jeff. Mucho appreciando.
!