Routers

[Jongi]

I notice that a fair number of people here use routers. Is this because the connection is being shared or for some other reasons?

 

[LandyMan]

I notice that a fair number of people here use routers. Is this because the connection is being shared or for some other reasons?

Connection is always alive, and I share it wirelessly between:

Desktop (print server)
2 Notebooks
iPaq

Nice to sit on the patio and do some work

 

[alchamy]

Same idea here, Connection is shared to a proxy and 3 desktops, 2 notebooks connect wirelessly as well.

 

[Jongi]

How much performance loss is there if I may put it that way?

 

[LandyMan]

How much performance loss is there if I may put it that way?

In terms of? Using a router, or using wireless connections?

 

[Jongi]

I suppose:

1. Sharing a wireless connection without a router (if possible), and then
2. Sharing the same through a router?

With 1, what is the reliability of sharing the connection?

What are the pros and cons of sharing wireless against adsl for instance?

 

[LandyMan]

I suppose:

1. Sharing a wireless connection without a router (if possible), and then
2. Sharing the same through a router?

With 1, what is the reliability of sharing the connection?

What are the pros and cons of sharing wireless against adsl for instance?

Ok, I am not an expert on this, but from my experience, the following:

1. I used to do this on my ISDN line ... desktop with ISDN modem, connected wirelessly to the notebooks in the house (desktop's wi-fi card setup up as AP). I never had any problems using this, and used to keep VPN connections running for days on end. So in my experience it was very reliable.

2. Sharing the connection through a wireless router does not affect the performance/speed at all. At the end of the day, iBurst transmits at max 1mb/s, whereas the wireless does so at 54mb/s ... this is my assumption and the way I have experienced it, having 3 pc's and an iPaq connected to the same wireless network, I still used to burst up to 1.5mb/s sometimes (with one of the machines on a VPN over wireless over iBurst)

I hope it makes sense, 'cause in my head it does

 

[Jongi]

Is that to say that if all 3 were accessing the internet at the same time and the line performance was at that time 1mbit, they would all be retrieving info at 1mbit?

 

[jmn]

Is that to say that if all 3 were accessing the internet at the same time and the line performance was at that time 1mbit, they would all be retrieving info at 1mbit?

Sit back and think about this question for a while, then tell us what your own answers is...

 

[LandyMan]

Is that to say that if all 3 were accessing the internet at the same time and the line performance was at that time 1mbit, they would all be retrieving info at 1mbit?

No, what I am trying to say is that wireless/wired doesn't make a difference. They will slow down, if they all access EXACTLY at the same time, grabbing alot of info.

 

[stoke]

stoke uses his latent sideways mindpower and concludes that Jongi would say:
- the 1Mbit connection would be running at full speed of 1Mbit.
- the 3 computers using the connection would then get their piece of the 1MBit, i.e. 1MBit / 3.
- so - they would all be retrieving at iMBit, but individually retrieving at 1MBit/3.

Insofar as the effect on performance that wireless has, yes it does have a negative effect, but not insofar as browsing goes.

When a wireless network starts a conversation, there is a lot of "howzit, hiyadoing, what channel you on, what strength you getting and who's your mother" [This is the intro conversation]. Now - this little conversation takes time, and you will have to wait for this conversation to finish before the transfer of data begins.

Now - when your computer requests a long stream of data on the wireless network, the "Intro" conversation happens, then the data starts streaming over, and it all flies quite smoothly.

But - when your computer keeps on asking little questions, then the intro conversation happens a lot more often, and therefore, the performance cost is higher.

So - if you're playing a FPS on your wireless network, then the LOSS is quite high, but downloading a file from one computer to another is quite losless.

 

[Jongi]

Thank you stoke. The "speed sharing" is as how I thought it would be.

Are these "intros" longer on wireless than on adsl?

 

[DaveBuchanan1337]

Are these "intros" longer on wireless than on adsl?

I think jongi is leading us on here...

jongi: he was talking about wifi wireless (home networking) handshakes, not iBurst handshakes.

in any case, performance difference is negligible.

 

[Roman4604]

I got 2 laptops on WiFi 54Mbps & 1 desktop on 100 Mbps Ethernet going through D-Link 624+.

On the few times I've connected laptop directly to UTD via Ethernet, I've not percieved any difference in email, surfing & downloading & ping times to www.iburst.co.za are in the same range.

I'm sure if you carefully measure, there is a miniscule difference. WinXP ping to LAN port of router on laptop is steady 1ms, via desktop <1ms.

BTW to my knowledge the greatest latency induced by these types of broadband routers is the NAT routing process, not the WiFi. Also each make has its own quirks. I quickly found out WPA (type of Wifi encryption) on my D-Link is poked, so I have to settle for WEP128.

 

[Jongi]

I'm not leading anyone on. Just wondered about the technology. Also had a conversation with a friend about how setting up a network with WiFi (iBurst) would compare with an ADSL line. I hypothesised that differences in the technology would be negligible (possibly in WiFi favour) given that the latecomer is WiFi and they might have added technology benefits.

As to the handshakes, Dave I was asking as to whether the WiFi handshakes were noticibally different to adsl ones on a network.

 

[LandyMan]

I'm not leading anyone on. Just wondered about the technology. Also had a conversation with a friend about how setting up a network with WiFi (iBurst) would compare with an ADSL line. I hypothesised that differences in the technology would be negligible (possibly in WiFi favour) given that the latecomer is WiFi and they might have added technology benefits.

As to the handshakes, Dave I was asking as to whether the WiFi handshakes were noticibally different to adsl ones on a network.

I think we are talking a few different languages here.

Let's see -
ADSL - Copper Cable technology
iBurst - Wireless Technology
WiFi - Wireless Technology

BUT, iBurst != WiFi

Speaking about routers and what not in this thread, we connect WiFi networks to an existing iBurst connection, where iBurst can also be replaced with ADSL/ISDN/Dial-up, and you would still have a WiFi network connected to the internet

So now I am also confused as to what this thread is really about.

Jongi, do you want to compare WiFi network connected to iBurst with WiFi network connected to ADSL?

 

[Jongi]

I apologise. i used WiFi loosely to denote wireless technology.

What I would however be interest in though is the difference in using iBurst/ADSL/ISDN/Dial-up as the source of a network. Whether you then use the router to create a wireless network or a cable network if you will is not so important.

 

[Roman4604]

the difference in using iBurst/ADSL/ISDN/Dial-up

All yours LandyMan ... too much typing for me at this time of the night.

 

[Jongi]

It's alright, gents. Tomorrow is another day

 

[MrH]

I notice that a fair number of people here use routers. Is this because the connection is being shared or for some other reasons?

From what you asked in the beginning of this thread I understood it to be a question as to why we use routers.

As already been explained to you we use it to connect more than one PC to the modem, and with a wireless router we can also use a notebook.

It does not affect the connection speed and has the above advantages, thats the short answer in a nutshell.

Seems you started drifting a bit off the original question.