<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=460294601-17092002><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>One of the biggest issues I find in a discussion like
this is the "mixed units confusion" :)</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=460294601-17092002><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>People often talk about "Megs" or whatever without
specifying (or sometimes even knowing) the units they are talking about, eg. MB
(mega bytes = 1024kilobytes</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=460294601-17092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>), Mb
(megabits),</FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>MHz (megahertz), Mbps
(megabits per second) or MBps (mega bytes per second). When the possible ranges
are great enough, such as in networking bandwidth, confusion can
reign.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>Cameron's suggestions are most helpful: he suggests NOT
to talk about throughput in terms of bits per second, but to use Bytes per
second.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>To put this in context, Michaels' explanation of
overheads and latency helped.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>I suggest we use a little more "discipline" and put the
"ps" at the end of the unit to identify speed rather than volume when talking
about transfer performances and use "B" instead of "b" to refer to "Bytes"
(=8+1+1or 0 bits or = 7+1+1or2 bits) and "bits" (= binary digits = 1 or
0).</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>I'd be interested know in this context how big (in
bits) each frame and packet identifier is and how many are needed in each
- say - kilobit or kilobyte of transmitted data.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>We might then get a better idea of comparing apples
with apples.... I get around 350kbps sustained data rate on my 802.11b
11Mbps network, using a single AP and network client. MUCH lower than the 3+
Mbps of a wired 10Mbps Ethernet link!</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>Cheers,</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002>Joe</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=460294601-17092002> </SPAN>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
Rowan Wainwright-Smith [mailto:Rowan@teleaudit.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 17
September 2002 9:15<BR><B>To:</B> Cameron Donaghey<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[MLB-WIRELESS] Transfer Rates<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE>Cameron,<BR><BR>transfer rates are a little tricky, 'coz there
are two ways of measureing them<BR><BR>1 PURE Bandwidth -
how many BITS per second!<BR>2. Transfer performance (usually
measured in BYTES per second)<BR><BR>The stats you are getting are pretty
reasonable, but you should be able to get about 550(-600)k/sec
<BR><BR><BR>these cards are 11 Mbit,<BR><BR>if you work it out, you are
getting about 2.5mbit transfer rate (not counting TCP overheads) Bear in
mind that these devices are 11mbit TOTAL bandwidth, so if you have two PC's
communicating, then you can really only expect up to approx 5Mbit transfer,
3PC's then about 3.5 Mbit & so on.<BR><BR>Wireless is NOT switched
bandwidth like most modern wired networks, but shared (like running a hub
instead of a full switch)<BR> Personally not sure about what effect
using an AP is having, but this *could* be reasonable!<BR><BR>maybe the rest
of the list can help you more....<BR><BR>well done on getting your WLan up
& running!<BR><BR>Rowan<BR><BR>Cameron Donaghey wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:5.1.0.14.2.20020916154805.00b22050@pop-server
type="cite">Hello Everyone,<BR> I have eventually got my wireless up
and running, only on a private level at the moment, and<BR>yet I am not
entirely sure it is running correctly. I have two machines and in each one
I have<BR>a Compaq WL100 card set to infrastructure mode. I also have a
linksys Wap11 access point<BR>which is running as an access point
only.<BR>I have done some testing and I seem to have a max. transfer rate
between the two machines<BR>of about 310kb/s and the machines are only a
meter or so apart. I would have assumed that<BR>being a 11mb/s network
that I would be able to achieve more so around 500-1000kb/s rather<BR>than
the 300kb/s max. I am currently achieving. Both card say they have
"excellent connections"<BR>and at 11mb/s.<BR>My question to you all, is
the transfer speed of about 300kb/s typical for 802.11b or should I
be<BR>able to achieve higher rates of transfer? If I should be able to
achieve more would anyone have<BR>any suggestions towards resolving the
problem?<BR> Thanks very much,<BR> Cameron
Donaghey<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=moz-signature>
<DIV class=moz-text-plain style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Courier New"
wrap="true" graphical-quote="true"><PRE wrap="">**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please delete the e-mail & notify the system manager.
We reserve the right to scan all e-mail traffic for restricted content
and to monitor all e-mail traffic in general.
The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation
by whom they are employed, except where the sender expressly
and with authority states them to be so.
This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been checked for the presence of computer viruses and scripts.
We believe but do not warrant that this e-mail is free from viruses.
Responsibility for virus checking rests entirely with the recipient.
5@356
**************************************
********************************</PRE></DIV><BR> <BR>
</DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>