Yep because UDP has to have the protocol itself designed by the programmer of the client/server relationship it's nice to use and works wonderful but it can easily cause snaffu's but yes it is faster in the long run because TCP has overhead however a good UDP program also has overhead but in the raw sense its faster.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Haynes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UDP is more efficent with bandwidth than TCP. The down side is that it is less
reliable. So even though the actual bandwidth usage is the same, the
'Throughput' (actual usefull data) is higher for UDP. When a UDP packet gets
lost, only the sender knows that it ever existed though.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Jason
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [smartBridges] speed
Speaking of this, is there any difference with UDP as opposed to TCP? I have
noticed 6Mbps+ with camera data alongside other web/email traffic, and I think
the camera is streaming using UDP...
Jason
> Sorry, cannot agree with that statement. Just because a system uses
> half-duplex does not mean that the speed is halved. It will only be
> halved if the acknowledgement packets are of the same length as the
> transmission packets and this is very rarely the case. For example,
> if you send blocks of 10k and the acknowledgement packet is only 0.1k
> then the time spent transmitting will be about 100 times longer than
> the time spent receiving (even considering the time spent switching
> between transmit and receive and the overhead in synchronizing.
>
> We did a lot of tests on this matter to try and determine some rule of
> thumb that we could use. We had heard that 60% would be a suitable
> value to use, but in our tests we never got above 40% i.e 4Mbps for
> 802.11b but and 20Mbps for 802.11g
>
> The above tests were all carried out in a single room with no other
> 2.4GHz equipment turned on within miles (tests were done on islands).
> We were getting nearly 100% in terms of signal strength and link
> quality. However, there was the possibility of reflections from the
> walls of the room causing problems which we had no way of
> investigating. Last week-end we miraculously got in excess of 40Mbps
> in an outdoor environment using 'g' equipment over a distance of about
> 100 meters. This was noted as an 'accidental' sidebar to a bigger test
> and we have not yet had a chance to re-check the figures.
>
> Hope my ramblings are of some help and did not sow seeds of confusion.
>
> Oliver Leamy
>
> Ogenek Teoranta, Ballingeary, Macroom County Cork
> +353 (26) 47808 ; +353 (86) 8337664
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Company 2210
> Sent: 23 June 2003 21:56
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] speed
>
> Yep. Wireless is half duplex, so whatever your getting divide by 2 to
> get realistic full duplex throughput.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 9:49 PM
> Subject: [smartBridges] speed
>
>
> > Is there any way to tell what speed an airBridge is connected at
> without
> > doing a speed test? If it's connected at 1Mbps am I right in
> > assuming
> that
> > the actual throughput will be about half that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roger
> >
> > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> smartBridges <yournickname>
> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
> smartBridges)
> > Archives: http://198.63.203.6
> >
> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in
> the body type unsubscribe
> smartBridges)
> Archives: http://198.63.203.6
>
> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in
> the body type unsubscribe
> smartBridges)
> Archives: http://198.63.203.6
>
The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges
<yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type
unsubscribe smartBridges)
Archives: http://198.63.203.6
The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges
<yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type
unsubscribe smartBridges)
Archives: http://198.63.203.6
The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname>
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges)
Archives: http://198.63.203.6
