<html>
Hello All,<br>
Ok got stuck into it and did some various testing last night. It
seems that I did overlook that<br>
fact that transferring client->AP->client halves the bandwidth
because the network is shared.<br>
The maximum I can achieve with client->AP->client is 282kB/s which
allowed me to transfer<br>
a 20meg file in 1min11secs. This from what I now understand is quite
good.<br><br>
I then decided to take the access point out of line and try the two
clients peer to peer ( adhoc )<br>
or client->client mode and see what they could achieve by
themselves.<br>
The maximum I could get with the same 20meg file was 569.05kB/s which
allowed me to<br>
transfer the file in 35.5secs.<br><br>
I then also tried running one client to the access point connected to the
second machine<br>
via its ethernet connection so client->AP->wired.<br>
The maximum I achieved from this was 546.6kB/s and I transferred the
20meg file in 37.9sec.<br><br>
So from all of this I think my setup is running how it should be although
I still don't entirely<br>
understand when going client->AP->client the transfer speed is
halved when compared to<br>
the client->client, perhaps someone could explain or perhaps this is
not correct.<br><br>
Thanks for everyone's replies,<br>
Cameron<br><br>
At 10:35 AM 9/17/2002 +1000, Geoff Smith wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I may have mis-read the original
post, I thought they were<br>
attempting client->client transfers not client->AP->client
transfers.<br>
My apologies if my post mislead anybody.<br><br>
Here is another link:<br>
<a href="http://support.countryday.net/Wireless/Performance/Wireless%20Efficiency.htm" eudora="autourl">http://support.countryday.net/Wireless/Performance/Wireless%20Efficiency.htm</a><br>
it shows the lucent wavelan card getting 4.93Mbps, (616kB/s), for<br>
client->AP->wired transfers<br><br>
client->AP->client transfers with an AP with a single channel radio
will be<br>
sharing<br>
the same bandwidth between the two clients (i.e. half again) but
more<br>
importantly<br>
its very sensitive to the capabilities of the AP, embedded os, cpu speed,
memory<br>
size<br>
for queueing and buffering etc etc; i.e. implementation issues. In
addition the<br>
people who<br>
designed the AP probably tuned it for client->AP->wired
connections<br>
not client->AP->client connections.<br><br>
If the orginal post meant kB, then he was getting 2.4Mbps which is
pretty<br>
impressive<br>
and would represent 21% of the total bandwith<br>
If the original post meant kbits then he was only getting 2.6% of the
total<br>
bandwidth<br>
for a client->AP->client test compared to 44.8% achieved by the
lucent card in a<br><br>
client->AP->wire test, or 27% achieved by the wl100 card in
client->AP->wire<br>
tests.<br><br>
So if Cameron is doing client->AP->client, perhaps he can tell us
what<br>
he is getting for a client->AP->wire test?<br><br>
Regards<br>
Geoff<br><br>
<br><br>
Craig Mead wrote:<br><br>
> | Do you mean kB, k bytes or kb, k bits<br>
> | 310kbytes -> 2.4Mbps<br>
> |<br>
> | Theoretically you should be able to get about half of the
11Mb<br>
> | bandwidth.<br>
> | ~ 5.5Mbps or ~680 kbytes/s<br>
><br>
> Doing client to client transfers, this is extremely innacurate. The
11b<br>
> protocol has some massive overheads which consume a high percentage
of the<br>
> possible thruput. The highest I've ever seen a link running
personally is<br>
> 570k/sec (client to wired server behind AP). Though theoretically
from this<br>
> you should then be able to get ~ 285k/sec client to client thru AP,
which is<br>
> a lot higher than the 50KB/sec max I've obtained.<br>
><br>
> I had a talk to some of the boys in Melbourne about this issue and
they said<br>
> it also depends on the placement of the end nodes in relation to
each other<br>
> and the AP for some reason. Not sure about the technicalities of how
this<br>
> would effect it, but they said it did. As soon as I get a few more
links on<br>
> I'll be able to do some more testing.</blockquote><br><br>
<br>
</html>