Depends on which one. I use to use a DGL-4300 one of there "Gaming" routers. And it would do about 80Mb/s Wan to Lan. Most of the new routers today are pretty well off. They still don't handle P2P all that well. But are way better then they were like 1 year ago.
Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 ---------------------------------------- From: "Al Stewart" <stewa...@westcreston.ca> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" <n...@brevardwireless.com>, "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al ------ At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: ------- >This could be a very touchy topic. >Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your >location or your ISP's its inevitable. >But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > >As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know >back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan >to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >under the 10Mb/s mark. >I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > >Nick Olsen >Brevard Wireless >(321) 205-1100 x106 > > >---------------------------------------- > >From: "Al Stewart" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >To: "WISPA General List" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Thanks ... this helps. > >One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >at least what the >nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >ALL the routers in the system. > >Al > >------ At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: ------- > > >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >address those conditions. > >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >and/or > >lots of uploads. > >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >to > >be up or down during the congestion time. > >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >its > >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >Therfore > >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >amount > >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > > > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > > > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >to > >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >have > >a time slice for uploading. > > > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >users > >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > > > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > > > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively >to > >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb > >plans. > > > > But the key is Queuing.... If you dont have it, when congestion is >reached > >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end >user, > >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also > >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to >slower > >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of >the > >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > > > >VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing >video, > >it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if > >someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets > >discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > > > >Tom DeReggi > >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Al Stewart" > >To: "WISPA General List" > >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM > >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > > > > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > > > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > > > or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc > > > at the same time? > > > > > > Al > > > > > > ------ At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: ------- > > > > > >>At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would >be > > >>better. > > >> > > >>Chris Cooper > > >>Intelliwave > > >> > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On > > >>Behalf Of Al Stewart > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM > > >>To: WISPA General List > > >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > >> > > >>Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > > >>meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > > >>connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > > >>point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > > >>bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > > >>has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > > >> > > >>We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > > >> > > >>Al > > >> > > >> >-------------- END QUOTE --------------------- --------------------- Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca --------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
