PING: Jeff Liebermann - Netgear WGT634U Storage Router Info!

Yep.

Heh-heh. It's amazing how many devices are fixed with a power cycle.

fairly difficult to design an incompatible USB 2.0 device, but given sufficient creativity, some manufacturers seem to have succeeded.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

No.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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: |

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.

Well, you're learning. It's common knowledge. See: |

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.