Wireless B slower than Ethernet?

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

Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
connection?

The configurations for the two machines are...
- wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
- ethernet connection on W2K box.

I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
The wireless box took over a minute.

I thought...
-USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
-802.11b runs at 11Mbps
-my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps

Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?

-w

[1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html

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

802.11b can theoratically reach speeds of 11Mbps. In reality, you will only
get half that, 5Mbps.
There could also be factors such as interference from things like other
users on the same channel, cordless phones and microwaves.


Ray Taylor

"wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04...
> Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my
Ethernet
> connection?
>
> The configurations for the two machines are...
> - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
> - ethernet connection on W2K box.
>
> I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box
took
> 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps
(3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
> The wireless box took over a minute.
>
> I thought...
> -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
> -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
> -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
>
> Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?
>
> -w
>
> [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html
>
>

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

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
<FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:

>Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
>that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.

You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from the
internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and thats
what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are you
on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair measure
if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.

And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further, by
downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the ethernet
machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.

>And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!

As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm afraid.
Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps from an
11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
0.5Mbps or worse.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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

> .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
internet connection.
>
Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8 is very
reasonable.

> And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further, by
> downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
>
I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are somewhat
consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer the
different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing bandwidth). I
choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site varies
from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very reliable. I
should really do my test through a speedtest site.

> As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
>
I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for wireless
USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the wireless
USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able to
provide 1.8Mbps.

-w
[1] See my previous post for reference


"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
> <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
> >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
>
> You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from the
> internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
> matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and thats
> what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are you
> on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair measure
> if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
>
> And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further, by
> downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
> Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the ethernet
> machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
>
> >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
>
> As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm afraid.
> Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps from an
> 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
> 0.5Mbps or worse.
>
>
> --
> Mark McIntyre
> CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
> CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

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

wendi <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@no_spam_hotmail.com> wrote:
> I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
> 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
> The wireless box took over a minute.

If you have access to a Unix or Windows command line somewhere on the wired
network, you can run iperf to get some readings on the speed. This will
still share a connection with other uses, but the reports are very stable
and reasonable. From my Unix ISP shell, I run
iperf -s -w 256k ( or some other reasonable window size )
on my Windows box I run
iperf -c ISP-unix-ip-address
This shows speed from the client to the server.
I can't reverse those roles because of NAT firewall.
If I run between two systems inside my network, I can use iperf in either
direction, or even test both ways simultaneously with -d
iperf -c server-ip-address -d
The bidirectional only works on some server/client pairs.

iperf might allow you to nail down where a problem resides.

http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

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

Wow! Would you mind telling us which area are you in? Cable or DSL?

"Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:0nzhc.199514$Ig.45402@pd7tw2no...
> Just jumping into this thread so might be unrelated but...
>
> My broadband connection regularly gets me more than 7.5mbit/second
> (950Kbytes/second). Definately faster than a wireless B router would
> provide.
>
>
> "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qIohc.17950$dZ1.12299@fed1read04...
> > > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
> > internet connection.
> > >
> > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8 is
> very
> > reasonable.
> >
> > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further,
> by
> > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
> > >
> > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
> somewhat
> > consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer
the
> > different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing
bandwidth).
> I
> > choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site
> varies
> > from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very reliable.
I
> > should really do my test through a speedtest site.
> >
> > > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
> > >
> > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for
wireless
> > USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
> > internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the
> wireless
> > USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able to
> > provide 1.8Mbps.
> >
> > -w
> > [1] See my previous post for reference
> >
> >
> > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless , "wendi"
> > > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
> reveals
> > > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
> > >
> > > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from
the
> > > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it doesn't
> > > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and
> thats
> > > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection. Are
> you
> > > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair
> measure
> > > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
> > >
> > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance further,
> by
> > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
> > > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the
ethernet
> > > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
> > >
> > > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
> > >
> > > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
> afraid.
> > > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps
from
> an
> > > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop to
> > > 0.5Mbps or worse.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark McIntyre
> > > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
> > > CLC readme:
> <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
> > >
> > >
> > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> > News==----
> > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>100,000
> > Newsgroups
> > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
> Encryption
> > =---
> >
> >
>
>

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

I can also point out that in New Zealand we have internet connections
through DSL running from 128k up to 5.8mbps as well as satellite access
which is even faster.

Ray Taylor


"wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YuKhc.19592$dZ1.15624@fed1read04...
> Wow! Would you mind telling us which area are you in? Cable or DSL?
>
> "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:0nzhc.199514$Ig.45402@pd7tw2no...
> > Just jumping into this thread so might be unrelated but...
> >
> > My broadband connection regularly gets me more than 7.5mbit/second
> > (950Kbytes/second). Definately faster than a wireless B router would
> > provide.
> >
> >
> > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:qIohc.17950$dZ1.12299@fed1read04...
> > > > .......1.8 is the best you get .... By the way, thats a very fast
> > > internet connection.
> > > >
> > > Hm... The average residential speed in California is ~1.6Mbps. 1.8
is
> > very
> > > reasonable.
> > >
> > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
further,
> > by
> > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
> > > >
> > > I did one at a time, and also at different times. The results are
> > somewhat
> > > consistent for my non-scientific test. I can see why you would prefer
> the
> > > different time method as it makes the math easier (no sharing
> bandwidth).
> > I
> > > choose the simultaneous method because usage of the destination site
> > varies
> > > from time to time. I realized that both methods are not very
reliable.
> I
> > > should really do my test through a speedtest site.
> > >
> > > > As for the wireless ... you'd get no better than 4Mbps...
> > > >
> > > I understand that I would not get anything more than 5Mbps[1] for
> wireless
> > > USB. My point is the wireless USB should not be the bottleneck. The
> > > internet connection (1.8Mbps) which is subtantially lower than the
> > wireless
> > > USB should be the bottleneck. Hence, the wireless USB should be able
to
> > > provide 1.8Mbps.
> > >
> > > -w
> > > [1] See my previous post for reference
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8u6b80hdlete0fu2ki64rs0c967hnhaocc@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:35:56 -0400, in alt.internet.wireless ,
"wendi"
> > > > <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test
> > reveals
> > > > >that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps.
> > > >
> > > > You say you measured this by downloading a file simultaneously from
> the
> > > > internet, and you have a 1.8Mbps internet connection? Then it
doesn't
> > > > matter how fast your ethernet card is, 1.8 is the best you get (and
> > thats
> > > > what you saw). By the way, thats a very fast internet connection.
Are
> > you
> > > > on a company LAN connection? Are you sure you're performing a fair
> > measure
> > > > if so, remember company bandwidth is shared.
> > > >
> > > > And then of course, you're halving each machine's performance
further,
> > by
> > > > downloading simultaneously..... do one at a time!
> > > > Possibly in this case the bandwidth was totally absorbed by the
> ethernet
> > > > machine, which then relinquished bandwidth only when finished.
> > > >
> > > > >And, the wireless USB is 6 times slower!!! Something is not right!
> > > >
> > > > As for the wireless, I'd expect that to be about 3-10x slower I'm
> > afraid.
> > > > Even with excellent signal strength you'd get no better than 4Mbps
> from
> > an
> > > > 11b card, and with poor strength the performance could easily drop
to
> > > > 0.5Mbps or worse.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mark McIntyre
> > > > CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
> > > > CLC readme:
> > <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> > > News==----
> > > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >100,000
> > > Newsgroups
> > > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
> > Encryption
> > > =---
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

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

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, wendi wrote:
> Yeah, I read it at...
>
> http://www.overclockercafe.com/Rev [...] Actiontec_
> pg4.html
> It's an old 2002 though...
>
> Anyways, I'm not getting anything close to 5Mbps. My speed test reveals
> that the ethernet connection is ~1.8Mbps. And, the wireless USB is 6 times
> slower!!! Something is not right!

That's because your computation is in MBytes/second, not Mbits/sec. You're
comparing incompatible units.

> "Ray Taylor" <administrator@kaycee.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:40848608$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
> > 802.11b can theoratically reach speeds of 11Mbps. In reality, you will
> only
> > get half that, 5Mbps.
> > There could also be factors such as interference from things like other
> > users on the same channel, cordless phones and microwaves.
> >
> >
> > "wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04...
> > > Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my
> > Ethernet
> > > connection?
> > >
> > > The configurations for the two machines are...
> > > - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
> > > - ethernet connection on W2K box.
> > >
> > > I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box
> > took
> > > 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps
> > (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
> > > The wireless box took over a minute.
> > >
> > > I thought...
> > > -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
> > > -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
> > > -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
> > >
> > > Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any
> clue?

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

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:02:09 GMT, "Noozer" <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>Calgary, Canada... And DSL will NEVER see those speeds. Cable all the way!

nonsense. The G.dmt standard is for 8 Mbps ADSL and in Japan services
are running at 28 M with upgrades to 45 M in the pipeline.

Phil

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

"wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04>...
> Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
> connection?
>
> The configurations for the two machines are...
> - wireless (802.11b) on Win98 box through USB 1.1
> - ethernet connection on W2K box.
>
> I tried downloading a 3.2Meg file [1] simultaneously. The ethernet box took
> 14sec. That translates to a throughput of 1.8Mbps (3.2m*8/14sec=1.8Mbps).
> The wireless box took over a minute.
>
> I thought...
> -USB 1.1 runs at 12Mbps
> -802.11b runs at 11Mbps
> -my internet connection runs at 1.8Mbps
>
> Then, the USB 1.1 AirLink adapter shouldn't be the bottleneck. Any clue?
>
> -w
>
> [1] http://www.tucows.com/preview/198107.html

I am having the same problem and have been searching for a answer for
almost a year now, there is none!. I 'think' it is more likely the
wireless system and/or the wireless receiver/card driver related issue
here.

I have used QCheck to verify the speed between CAT5 connect and
wireless connect, the CAT5 give me 9+/- while the wireless is 4.4+/-.
Some posts claimed that it is due to the wireless system's half-duplex
method and overheads. If this is true, then we should still get HALF
of what CAT5 connect gets, instead I am having 1/3 or lower while
surfing and d/l.

If you do find a solution, please do share with us.

MR814v1 + USB Phoebe wireless card.

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

On 25 Apr 2004 21:30:39 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , nice4@yahoo.com
(Nice4) wrote:

>"wendi" <FreeOfSpam_wendikun@NO_SPAM_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tEZgc.12914$dZ1.1856@fed1read04>...
>> Why is my Wireless (802.11b) connection sustantially slower than my Ethernet
>> connection?
>>
>I am having the same problem and have been searching for a answer for
>almost a year now, there is none!. I 'think' it is more likely the
>wireless system and/or the wireless receiver/card driver related issue
>here.

Guys, this is practically a FAQ.

>the CAT5 give me 9+/- while the wireless is 4.4+/-.

>Some posts claimed that it is due to the wireless system's half-duplex
>method and overheads. If this is true, then we should still get HALF
>of what CAT5 connect gets,
....
>If you do find a solution, please do share with us.

This has been explained about a zillion times. A google groups search of
this group would turn up answers.

Reduction factors:
1) half duplex
2) wireless protocol overheads
3) transmission quality.

Getting 4.4Mbps from your wireless is actually quite good.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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

Nice4 wrote:
>>Reduction factors:
>>1) half duplex
>>2) wireless protocol overheads
>>3) transmission quality.
>>
>>Getting 4.4Mbps from your wireless is actually quite good.
>>
>
> Well the 4.4Mbps is very good I agreed, but when it comes to internet
> d/l, it is a major problem. Lets put it this way, assumed the wired
> connection d/l from a site for 120KB/s +/-, if I do the same d/l from
> the same site at the same time via wireless connection, I will only
> gets around 50~60KB/s. So it seems the 4.4Mbps is helpless at all. I
> wonder what if I have an 11G with 54Mbps enabled, under the same
> situation describled aboved, what could be my d/l speed?
>
> Thinking of 11G solution. BTW, can a 11G wireless adapter works with
> a 11B wireless router in 11Mbps connection ?

The key is "at the same time". 120KB/s D/L speed may well be the limit
of your path from your ISP, so running two D/L's concurrently can only get
a total of 120 KB/s, split in your case by the wired and the wireless
PCs.

What do you get when you D/L single-stream to the wireless PC?
--
Cheers, Bob

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

On Thu, 06 May 2004 15:21:49 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Bob Willard
<BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:

>The key is "at the same time". 120KB/s D/L speed may well be the limit
>of your path from your ISP, so running two D/L's concurrently can only get
>a total of 120 KB/s, split in your case by the wired and the wireless
>PCs.

Hah. I mentioned this in my first post, and assumed he'd already fixed that
mistake. Then I re-read his last post, and you're right, he's still testing
the wired on its own, then starting a 2nd download and is surprised that
the speed falls off...

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---