Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Oh yeah, Just a question..where did you buy it from? On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Anthony Q. Martin amar...@charter.netwrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 -- Best Regards, Zulfiqar Naushad
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Fantastic!! Make sure you upgrade the firmware. It fixes a bit of issues. The router has been rock solid for me and a real treat! So far I like it a lot. Oh yeah, I do keep it vertical using the supplied stand. Regards, On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Anthony Q. Martin amar...@charter.netwrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 -- Best Regards, Zulfiqar Naushad
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Amazon. I get two day shipping for a single yearly fee. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Naushad Zulfiqar z00...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 23:38:50 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Oh yeah, Just a question..where did you buy it from? On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Anthony Q. Martin amar...@charter.netwrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 -- Best Regards, Zulfiqar Naushad
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Nice!! I also bought mine from Amazon with Amazon prime! On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Anthony Martin amar...@charter.net wrote: Amazon. I get two day shipping for a single yearly fee. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Naushad Zulfiqar z00...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 23:38:50 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Oh yeah, Just a question..where did you buy it from? On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Anthony Q. Martin amar...@charter.net wrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I hate to be a hater...but I seriously don't want to get any more apple stuff over my lifetime. I have too many ipods as it is and I just don't like how they keep it all locked down. And since they got in bed with ATT and locked me out of an iPhone upgrade, I'm going to become a loyal Android fan...I'll get the Incredible Phone and whatever slate computer that comes out with the Android OS...that'll show em! I have a feeling I'll be better offuntil, of course, it comes time to be hatein on Google (I hope that time is not now)... On 5/10/2010 12:41 AM, maccrawj wrote: Make sure you read up on it vs. the linksys WRT610's! Oh, and screw apple anything for various reason even if they poop gold eggs! On 5/9/2010 5:24 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
1. That's why I run the N in N-only mode and have another b/g WAP in a non-overlapping channel. Same basic concept as dual radio. Point remains that you can exceed 100mbit on N gear fairly easily. 2. Yes, compared to the features, robustness, and performance of pfSense, dd-wrt based appliances are garbage. To suggest otherwise is loony. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:23 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs 1. If you don't run a 2 radio setup, then non-N devices will kill the 240mb speed. 2. Garbage, LOL, OK next loony please! On 5/9/2010 11:07 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N router (which I use as nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have to run dual frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut will allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:00 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs 1. That's why I run the N in N-only mode and have another b/g WAP in a non-overlapping channel. Same basic concept as dual radio. Point remains that you can exceed 100mbit on N gear fairly easily. 2. Yes, compared to the features, robustness, and performance of pfSense, dd-wrt based appliances are garbage. To suggest otherwise is loony. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:23 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs 1. If you don't run a 2 radio setup, then non-N devices will kill the 240mb speed. 2. Garbage, LOL, OK next loony please! On 5/9/2010 11:07 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N router (which I use as nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have to run dual frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut will allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 01:07:25AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: I've pushed over 240mbit/s on my D-Link DIR-655 N router (which I use as nothing more than an AP) and an Intel 5300 NIC. You don't have to run dual frequency, but that was with a double (40MHz) channel. I know that the dd-wrt project is quite popular, but for router and/or firewall duties, think they're all garbage compared to pfSensebut will allow that I have a complex setup with unusual requirements. Agreed. And I just use mine as a wireless bridge anyway, I don't care what it runs. If I used it as a router in a public place or some other specialized situation I would definitely want dd-wrt. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj maccr...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc. lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj maccr...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
Lopaka, UDAMan, Bro! No. I do not wish to know where you learn all this stuff? Happy that you did it! Very nice reads. Best, Duncan On 05/10/2010 18:32, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc. lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawjmaccr...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To:hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall?
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs -ClearOS
ClearOS does look pretty cool, definitely more features and more hand holding than pfsense but still neat if you need it. (I use PfSense and it suits me fine, but no kids to censor! :) ) On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:32:26PM -0700, Robert Martin Jr. wrote: Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc. lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj maccr...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions. You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I see. Very interesting. But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. I would have to just use it as an AP right? -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Make sure you read up on it vs. the linksys WRT610's! Oh, and screw apple anything for various reason even if they poop gold eggs! On 5/9/2010 5:24 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
The apple extreme router (imho) is a terrible product. Apple has some winners, but their routers are not amongst them. Configuration is ridiculous, support is bad and performance is not very good. Just a bad combination. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: maccrawj maccr...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 21:41:04 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Make sure you read up on it vs. the linksys WRT610's! Oh, and screw apple anything for various reason even if they poop gold eggs! On 5/9/2010 5:24 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
The airport extreme is actually very nice, esp for the price. A lot of N routers/APs don't even give you Gig ports. Why bother if the Wifi can do 300Mbit and the wired is only 100. On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 09:41:04PM -0700, maccrawj wrote: Make sure you read up on it vs. the linksys WRT610's! Oh, and screw apple anything for various reason even if they poop gold eggs! On 5/9/2010 5:24 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Naw...I'll stick with the Netgear that you mentioned. I was just trying to explain to Duncan about the port and mentioned why the USB port could be nicebut I use Windows 7 homegroups, so I can easly move files between PCs. And my printer is wireless too, so I can print to it from the various computers. The Airport seems more for mac users to me...my 3700 should be hear early this week... On 5/9/2010 5:01 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote: Get an Apple Extreme Router then. It should fit the bill. They are good routers too. Please note my new mobile number listed in my signature. With best regards, Zulfiqar Naushad Siemens Limited Energy Sector Oil Gas Division Oil Gas Solutions E O OS P.O. Box 719, Al-Khobar, 31952 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Phone: +966 (3) 865-9730 (*NEW) Mobile: +966 (59) 561-2990 (*NEW) Fax: +966 (3) 887-0165 mailto:zulfiqar.naus...@siemens.com www.siemens.com.sa -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:55 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Yeah, but some of the other routers seem to offer much higher performance in this area. Backups aren't the only thing...moving files and share files are other good reasons to have a cheap USB drive on the router. On 5/9/2010 1:37 AM, Naushad Zulfiqar wrote: Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martinamar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
On 5/9/10 9:59 PM, Bryan Seitz wrote: The airport extreme is actually very nice, esp for the price. A lot of N routers/APs don't even give you Gig ports. Why bother if the Wifi can do 300Mbit and the wired is only 100. Simple, most N routers are not dual frequency, thus only 150Mbit, and that is the wireless data rate, not the actual data rate. 150Mbit wireless can easily fit on a 100Mbit wired pipe. Does not mean I don't prefer to have a Gig switch in the router, but 100Mbit won't be your bottle neck in most 802.11n networks. As far as routers go, if it runs dd-wrt, I am interested in it, otherwise, I am not. Harry
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? I have a 1000 Mbps wired network but only get about 45 MB/s.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Depends on the protocol. In the Windows world, I never got above around 40-50MB/s using SMB 1.0 between pre-Vista/2k8 machines, but now regularly get 110MB/s with SMB 2.0 between machines XP/2k3. SMB 1.0 just didn't scale well. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Jason Carson Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:38 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? I have a 1000 Mbps wired network but only get about 45 MB/s.
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
could one of my wired devices be slowing me down? Right now, I have two PCs with 1000 Bbps ethernet...and a Tivo Series 2. Maybe that Series 2 is slow? On 5/8/2010 2:08 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: Depends on the protocol. In the Windows world, I never got above around 40-50MB/s using SMB 1.0 between pre-Vista/2k8 machines, but now regularly get110MB/s with SMB 2.0 between machinesXP/2k3. SMB 1.0 just didn't scale well. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Jason Carson Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:38 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? I have a 1000 Mbps wired network but only get about 45 MB/s. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Last I checked the wrt54g is 10/100. On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 02:52:12PM -0400, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: could one of my wired devices be slowing me down? Right now, I have two PCs with 1000 Bbps ethernet...and a Tivo Series 2. Maybe that Series 2 is slow? On 5/8/2010 2:08 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: Depends on the protocol. In the Windows world, I never got above around 40-50MB/s using SMB 1.0 between pre-Vista/2k8 machines, but now regularly get110MB/s with SMB 2.0 between machinesXP/2k3. SMB 1.0 just didn't scale well. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Jason Carson Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:38 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? I have a 1000 Mbps wired network but only get about 45 MB/s. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. -- Best Regards: Derrick. Running Open SuSE 11.1 KDE 3.5.10 Desktop. Pontefract Linux Users Group. plug @ play-net.co.uk
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
I think this has to be per segment. Example, I have a whs and all my machines on a gigabit switch. My transfer between whs and mce is about 69Mb/s. But the wireless routeron my network is 10/100. I'm only using 1 port on that to feed the gigabit switch Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Anthony Q. Martin amar...@charter.net Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 19:46:19 To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00
Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs????
Aside from small files yes, the usb is dog slow for backups or anything of that sort. It's more of a handy thing other than anything. If you're serious about backups, a NAS would be more proper. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony Q. Martin amar...@charter.netwrote: Duncan, At lot of the dual-band wirless N routers have a usb port of them for connecting an HD that is then available to machines connected for backups etc. over the network. One disadvantage of the WNDR3700 is that it is really slow for file transfers even on a 1Gbit network (which you'd have if you have it). So, that's the one of two negatives about this router. Still, I'm going to get it as they all have pros and cons. On 5/8/2010 7:27 PM, DSinc wrote: Anthony, What do you mean by, Too bad the storage is so slow, though. ?? If your current router is only capable of 10/100, then your current LAN is only capable of 10/100. Even with G-Bit cards installed in devices. I think, anyway. Duncan On 05/08/2010 15:32, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Yes, as Bryan says and I have confirmed. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been since I paid any attention to my network. Even with the powerline adapters, which claim a max throughput of 200 Mbps, I'd have to get a newer better router to get that (or the best real world numbers I can get). So, I guess I'll go with the Netgear WNDR3700 if no one else chimes in with a reason not too. It seems to be rated as highly as any other and has some cool features. Too bad the storage is so slow, though. On 5/8/2010 3:20 PM, Gaffer wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 18:23:39 Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I'm using a linksys wrt54g with a wsb24 booster. My mothers claim to do 1000 Mbps yet on file transfers I only get like 11 MB/s which is more like 100Mpbs/8 = 12.5 MB/s. If my wired network is running at 1000 Mbps shouldn't I bet getting around 125 MB/s file transfers over the wired network? What gives? Your speeds will only be as fast as the slowest link in the chain. If I recall the wrt54g is only 10/100 Mbs on the Ethernet ports. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2861 - Release Date: 05/08/10 02:26:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2862 - Release Date: 05/08/10 14:26:00 -- Best Regards, Zulfiqar Naushad
