I have a Cable modem at home with download speeds of 13 - 15Mb/s. I love it! Unfortunately, I only measure those speeds on my wired computers. The wireless ones (I tried 2 laptops using 2 different PCMCIA cards) only get around 6.5-7 Mb/s when downloading from the Internet.
NOTE: when transferring a file from my wired computer to the wireless one, I did get around 15Mb/s. That's slow but it proves that the wireless computer can receive more than 7Mb/s.
I am using my new Linksys WRT54GS. Both laptops are P4, 512MB RAM, Win XP SP2. Here is what I tried to eliminate the obvious:
Tried both laptops with the same card. Same results, hence not a computer problem.
Tried both laptops with a wired connection. Got 13Mb/s. Again, not a computer issue. Router is capable.
I tried a different wireless card on both laptops. Back to 7Mb/s. I guess that rules out the wireless adapter.
I changed from WPA to WEP and then to no encryption at all. No improvement.
I tried different wireless channels. No luck.
I unplugged my only 2.4GHZ cordless phone. Nope. Router is fine.
I moved to the room where the router resides. No improvement. I guess there is no major signal loss.
Brought a new laptop from work with an internal Mini-PCI card. Same speed. Not a PCMCIA limit.
Switched back to the old router (Netgear MR814v2). Same old, same old.
The only thing I am yet to try is using a USB wireless adapter but I doubt it will show any better speeds.
Is Wireless Internet severely limited? Am I missing something?
Ever consider the possibilty that you can't figure it out because you have a CCNA? Just a thought.
Cease bragging. I've only got 1.5Mbits/sec.
It should be much faster than that. I just ran a quicky wireless benchmark test using IPerf just yielded 18Mbits/sec TCP thruput on my home WRT54GSv4. It's a bit slow because the neighbors are doing something on my connection via wireless. See:
for maximum theoretical speeds.
It would be best if you take the internet out of your benchmarks. If you have a wired desktop (not wireless) available, setup IPerf server on it and do your wireless benchmarking locally. That will also take the router and cable modem out of the picture.
What hardware version (look on serial number tag)? What firmware version (see status page)?
Cool. You have 2 machines. Do the IPerf server thing with one of them in wired configuration.
On the wireless laptop, at what wireless speed are you connecting to the WRT54GS? Your thruput should be about half the connection speed.
From Sherlock Holmes: When we have eliminated the obvious, the apparent, and those items unworthy of being checked, what remains, however improbable, is what we have overlooked and have screwed up.
Do you have simultaneous wired and wireless connections running on the test laptop? The "route print" command will show the current router table. Look at the "metric" column to see which route has preference. Most XP laptops will autoswitch between wireless and wired but I've seen a few utilities that screw things up.
I'll admit that you did a good job of trying to isolate the problem. The trouble is that you're apparently doing everything with an internet benchmarking tool. That's fine for later, but makes it difficult to clearly identify the culprit. Try it without the internet first.
No, not that severely.
Connect BOTH laptops to the WRT54GS via CAT5 cables. Unplug the cable modem to keep it out of the way. Run IPerf benchmark in TCP mode (with default parameters). At 100baseT-FDX, you should get about
80Mbits/sec or more. Basically, we're testing the IPerf software and computers with this test.
On the server: IPerf -s On the client: IPerf -r -c ip_address_of_server The -r will do a non-simultaneous bi-directional test in case the problem is asymmetrical.
If the numbers here are unusually low, check: netstat -s | more for any IP and TCP layer errors. Any errors are probably at the MAC layer, but you'll need to fish those out with the ethernet card diagnostics.
Now, replace one of the CAT5 cable with a wireless connection and run the same IPerf benchmarks again. Note the wireless connection speed. You should get about half the connection speed.
Let us know what you get here and we'll blunder onward depending on the wireless benchmark results.
Please check the current firmware version of the WRT54GS (take note of the hardware version to ensure that you selected the firmware version correctly if there is a need to upgrade it). Go to linksys.com/download and compare if you have the latest. You can take a look on the Firmware Release Notes.
If you have the latest firmware, check if you need to update the drivers for your card....
I will run IPerf tonight andwill then report the results. I wasn't aware of it. You're right about the CCNA. If it's not Cisco, they won't mention it... It's still a good-to-have certification.
For Internet speed tests I used speakeasy.net/speedtest. My WRT54GS is hardware Ver 6 and I installed the latest firmware from Linksys which is now 1.51.0.
I usualy get 48-54Mb/s as my connection speed. I thought that my old Netgear router (.11b) was at fault and according to you 5.5-6Mb/s is about as much as I could get from it anyway. It was time to get a new one...
I've tried to convince several WRT54G v5 units, that my customers dragged home, into working, but gave up and exchanged them for other units.
With an 11Mbit/sec 802.11b connection, the best you can theoretically do is about 6Mbits/sec. See chart at:
Just a note. Many of the wireless features will actually slow you down if they are not used. 802.11b compatibility will limit you to about 15Mbits/sec if there is an 802.11b client connected. Similarly, if you have the Afterburner or Speedboost enabled, but not in use, it will reduce the peak speeds to non-SpeedBoost enabled clients. Try disabling all the fancy features and limit your testing to stock
iperf runs two parts, a server and a client. On one machine iperf -s On the other machine iperf -c ip_address_of_machine_one will run a default 10 second transmission from machine one to two. This can be across OS types, and I run from an internet Unix system through my NAT router to my PC.
Well, there does seem to be some confusion here between cause and effect. Troubleshooting expertise is not obtained by studying for and passing exams. It's obtained by getting one's hands dirty and developing an understanding of how things really work. My theory is that once one understands how something works, the troubleshooting is merely the systematic elimination of probable causes[1]. The inability to get one's hands dirty and get real experience is also why phone tech support is often useless for troubleshooting.
I have nothing against certifications and certificates. I have a personal attachment to certificates as I partially supported myself during college days running a diploma mill. Certificates also saves some testing effort during the job application and hiring ordeal. It also guarantees that the applicant knows all the buzzwords from about
3-5 years ago, so we presumably can talk the same language. For myself, I'm self-certified and too busy to take the exams. If I need a certificate, I just fire up the certificate factory software, and produce one on demand. Something like my old warranty card:
There's another on the wall that proclaims that I'm a "Computer Expert" which entitles me to be arrogant, obnoxious, egotistical, pontifical, and short tempered to clients and customers. In the 16 odd years that it's been on the wall, only a few people have noticed and nobody has complained. Yeah, I like certificates.
[1] Once upon a time, I had a lucrative business driving to the server farms in the middle of the night to perform server and network troubleshooting. The highlight of one of these trips was watching two or three CCNE/MCSE holders, busily trying to restore connectivity to a rack full of servers, when all the lights were off on the switch. Repair consisted of plugging the switch back in and then wasting an hour undoing the damage the certificate holders had done trying to reconfigure the system (because they didn't cover themselves by keeping a log or making backups). Certificates don't necessary do much for troubleshooting.
I wouldn't let these guys put you down for "tooting your horn". You should be proud of your accomplishments. That said, they're right in that a piece of paper doesn't mean that you can troubleshoot anything. Conversely, not having that certification and/or education doesn't mean that you can't fix stuff - it's just that most employers require the certification/education. OTOH, no one can be expected to fix everything on their own - to believe otherwise is unrealistic. Anyway, I believe your intent was to inform others that you have substantial knowledge of networking so that they don't have to "dumb down" their explaination so that you would understand.
Nope. Both fixing and finding the problem are trivial compared to assigning the blame. No problem can be solved unless a culprit is found. In general, it's best to blame someone that is no longer around or available to defend themselves. Certainly, never blame anyone that is needed to repair the problem. Interrogation of the innocent is also a necessary skill. Grilling them for what they changed, even after they insist that they didn't change anything, is a fundamental requirement before attempting any serious troubleshooting. Often, it is difficult to obtain a blame consensus depending on how the participants are polarized. For example, it is difficult to blame a Windoze crash on the company Linux faction. Similarly, it is difficult to blame a hardware failure on a programmer. The real problem is that there has been little investigation and almost no publications on this very important aspect of troubleshooting. If certification classes included more exercises on finger pointing, buck passing, interrogation, and office politics, troubleshooting will be greatly facilitated.
First, let me clarify that as Johnny stated, my whole point about mentioning the CCNA was not to brag or to start the interesting discussion re: "Do certified people know what they're doing?". I merely wanted you to know that I know a thing or two about networking. I should have mentioned my 7 years in the industry... I'm proud of my certifications and can't stress enough the importance of having them when you maintain a career in a competative environment. There's also nothing like hands-on experience and this is how I got to my original troubleshooting of the issue. What a beautiful mix!
Back to the results:
Internet was out of the game. Both computers wired: 92.6 Mbits/sec
1 wireless (server) and 1 wired (client): 19 Mbits/second. The reported connection speed at that time was 54 Mb/s.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the 2nd wireless card with me so I couldn't run the test with both computers connected to the access point.
So if I understand correctly (based on field experience :-) ), that proves that my router and access points are just fine. Is there an unusual overhead for packets from the web that are destined to a wireless client?
I can theoretically call my ISP but they'll most likely blame it on the Linksys equipment...
Some of us make a lot of money cleaning up debris left by EEs and Computer Science majors. The piece of paper is needed to show what one has done, but then the rubber hits the road when one has to perform. Typically, respond to an assignment and are met by engineers who have been messing around for maybe a month, and you're out of there and back on the airplane in an hour with a lot of money in your pocket. Awed engineers will ask "who are you!! Unfortunately, being good at your job won't get one much status, and engineers are brought with H1B visas..But, the piece of paper is still needed, and good to have. Cheers!!!
I just couldn't a perfect target when presented to me. It's a constant subject of debate (and irritation) among my few remaining friends and aquaintences. Also, be advised that all experience and no theory also has its limitations. One of my early mentors was a self taught genius (literally). To him, learning anything new came easily and was obvious, while I stuggled to understand. However, he often managed to overlook obvious issues that were basic to anyone that had a formal electronics education. He eventually had to go back to skool to get a decent basis for what he learned from extensive experience. I often see this is myself, where I know how to fix or do something, but have only a limited understanding on how it works under all the acronyms. If anything, certifications exposes a person to things that one would normal not care much about (SNA, X.25, IPX/SPX, etc).
Perfect.
If you have 802.11b compatibility enabled, and a connected 802.11b client, that's about what you would get. Actually, it would be a bit less. The maximum speed with 802.11b compatibility disabled, and running in 802.11g mode would be about 24Mbits/sec. You should see something close to that but your about 12% low. My guess(tm) is that you have the Afterburner (Speedboost) mode enabled, but are not using it. Dive into the WRT54GS setting and turn it off. Methinks you should then see something closer to 24Mbits/sec thruput. You might also be seeing some intereference. Try other channels (1, 6, or 11) and see if the speed improves.
Of course, all this begs the question "What thruput speed were you expecting"? It is possible to have greater than 25Mbit/sec thruput using proprietary enhancements such as Afterburner. Just purchase a compatible client card. You already have the correct router. However, I don't think you'll be too happy with it because the range at
too lazy to find) on the WRT54G indicate that the speed vs range tradeoff is not too wonderful for Afterburner. This might be worth reading as a reality cheque:
On the other foot, some of the MIMO router are demonstrating really impressive speed versus range curves. If you really want to go faster than 20-25Mbits/sec or go through walls reliably, you might consider one of these.
Assuming the access point doesn't add any additional latency, you're wireless to wireless thruput should be half again or 12 Mbits/sec maximum between 802.11g only clients.
Ahem. Based on how closely you're results match theoretical limits, I would say you're 12% low in speed. Close, but some tweaking might be useful. However, based on extensive experience, none of which I've bothered to record or tabulate, I would say your 19Mbits/sec TCP thruput is typical for a default configured wireless router.
No, and that is a problem. Your previous benchmarks of 7Mbits/sec need to be explained. The wireless only performance is "good enough". The wired performance to the internet at 15Mbits/sec is also running at the best that the cable modem can deliver. Something else is going on here that is only common to wireless plus internet. Time for some more testing.
Go unto:
and try the tests. Look under "more details" and "statistics" and see if they offer some more clues. If you have a TCP RWIN problem, or something similar on your client, it will show it. Also, UCSC.EDU is on the left coast. See the list of other WEB100 servers at the bottom of the page for something closer.
Also, there is quite a bit of detail that can be extracted from IPerf run over the internet. However, I have a problem. I know the IP address of several IPerf servers on the internet, but I don't know if I'm allowed to disclose them to the GUM (great unwashed masses). I'm going to play it safe and keep my big mouth shut. However, a Google search will find a few. No long tests please as IPERF will saturate the ISP's backhaul.
That depends on the ISP. Ask them to setup an IPerf server so that you can do your own testing and not bother their support people. Unfortunately, I can't even convince my own ISP's to do that, so your chances of success are probably limited. Still, it's worth a try.
Benchark, test, reconfigure, substitute components, borrow a different router, try same tests at a friends, and whatever you do, make NO assumptions. Use your own system to learn the limitations and effects of various parameters. For example, use IPerf to make a graph of connect speed, thruput, and range. When things are finally deemed stable, record some benchmarks so that you have a basis for what constitutes "normal". Extra credit for setting up SNMP and graphing performance changes over time using MRTG, PRTG, or RRDTool.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.