Real world 802.11n performance

[TooNice]

I never got to play with 802.11n before so I am wondering how fast it really is. Is it possible to stream HD over it? On paper it is faster than 100Mbit LAN, is it even able to *match* 100Mbit LAN under fairly good situation (i.e. router, and PCs right very near each other)?

[jim]

In my experience, no.

It might have good throughput, under ideal circumstances, but in reality I found that it dropped too many packets/frames to be of any real use. All you need are a few skipped frames and any HD content starts to look pretty rubbish. Obviously from the paper specs it can beat it for speed, but it's reliability that kills it - not just reliability of the signal and dropping out of range, but the reliability of each individual packet making it to destination. When you're transferring a file, no big deal, but if you're trying to stream HD video it presumably has to either wait for the packet to arrive or just forget about it and move on. Either way, it's not great.

I should also add that I found 100Mb ethernet insufficient in certain scenarios, so I've gone with Gigabit.

[Pancake]

you can stream 1080p over G fine, So i dont see why it would be a problem with N

[jim]

you can stream 1080p over G fine, So i dont see why it would be a problem with N

That's far too much of a blanket statement. I actually had a stab at it yesterday just out of interest and it was utterly useless.

If the content is of a sufficiently high bit-rate (which isn't directly linked to resolution), then it won't work over wireless G. And of any bit-rate you're going to suffer packet loss.

[Biscuit]

Im with snootyjim on this one, i run a pretty decent 802.11n router (D-Link DIR-655) and it struggles with even 720p unless you are in near ideal circumstances.

If you want a stable stream of media then you need a cable, either a decent powerline or standard CAT5/6 over GbE.

[Pancake]

I am yet to beef up my network and 1080p is still fine, here is on N (But pretty rubbish N)

Here i am 3 rooms away from my router, its a cheap TP-Link thing i got to replace my Draytek when it died

My main machine is on 100mb to the router.

Here you go, smooth as butter!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6017469/Rand...122_203513.m4v

Ill connect on G in a sec and show

[BobF64]

802.11n is annoying, or rather when people say it, its annoying.

n running in the 2.4GHz block has a lot of other signals to compete with, like the other Wi-Fi signals, DECT phones and a load of other gadgets.

n running in the 5GHz block tends to be faster because it has more of the airspace to itself.

Would either keep up with a wired network, probably not, and I dont think any wireless networking ever really will, not unless it gets some nice clear airspace to use.

[Pancake]

With G, its juuuussttt to slow to do that massive 24GB movie, it will do a 22GB one fine though

This is with the Wireless card set to A/B/G only

And btw this is all on 2.4GHz with about 17 other networks nearby

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6017469/Rand...122_204950.m4v

[abaxas]

Get rid of your 'el ****ty router' and get some decent antennas.

99% of wireless problems solved.

[Jay]

with my Cisco kit I get about 12MB/s on n

[TooNice]

Thanks The reason I asked is because I was deciding which mini-router to get for my mobile wi-fi. For the time being (i.e. until I move to a more permanent place in Tokyo), I do not have access to sexy fibre optic broadband, so I have to make do with the only suitable alternative I can get.

I basically had the option of two routers (it won't matter because they can't be found else where, but for those slightly curious it's the NEC WM3500 and the URoad-9000). The later is said to be a little better for it's primary purpose (upload/download speed), but it is completely wireless, so to function as a router, I only have the choice of 802.11b/g/n. The former on the other hand can be fitted with an optional cradle with a single LAN port (which I assume can be hooked to a hub). The LAN port however is only 100Mbit, which in my experience is usually okay for HD streaming. My previous router Netgear 834GT didn't deal with HD streaming well at all on G however, even with every device near each other.

In the end, I settled with the URoad. Had the cradle on the NEC included a Gigabit port, I would've gone for it, but it doesn't. Though come to think of it, can I just hook an Ethernet cable directly between two computers (silly question perhaps, but I've never tried it)?

[jetfire]

i can watch the bbc hd on my acer a500 on wireless n and it goes as fast as my wired in pc, well gets the same on speed test that is.

[jim]

In the end, I settled with the URoad. Had the cradle on the NEC included a Gigabit port, I would've gone for it, but it doesn't. Though come to think of it, can I just hook an Ethernet cable directly between two computers (silly question perhaps, but I've never tried it)?

Doesn't matter if it's a 100 megabit port, surely? You just hook it up to a gigabit switch.

And yeah, you can connect directly, but IIRC you need a crossover cable. I did it about ten years ago and never tried it since

[Pancake]

Doesn't matter if it's a 100 megabit port, surely? You just hook it up to a gigabit switch.

And yeah, you can connect directly, but IIRC you need a crossover cable. I did it about ten years ago and never tried it since

You dont need a crossover cable anymore, all of the new NICs do it for you

[TooNice]

Doesn't matter if it's a 100 megabit port, surely? You just hook it up to a gigabit switch.

Ah, I didn't know it would work that way. I thought that in the same way that connecting a USB 3 switch to an USB 2 device is not going to grant you USB3 speed, the speed transfer rate will be held back by the slowest device.

[shaithis]

The difference between a switch and a hub is that a hub must run all ports at the speed of the slowest negotiation.

A switch will negotiate the fastest speed between 2 ports that are currently communicating with each other.