DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

I haven't tried any wireless N equipment yet, but as a general rul you will get much better speeds if you use wired instead of wireless networking.  You can also try using jumbo frames, search on the forum for info on this as well as increasing the speed (as I see you have done), there are lots of posts on these topics.

Thank you for the repsonses-helpful.  I have a Linksys WRT150N N Router.   I am currently doing a base (initial) backup...I will post my GHZ asap when I can tap into my router menu (i don't think I should go in mid transfer).    Any other thoughts are appreciated.

Setting is at Standard 7-2.442 GHZ.  Therefore my transfer rate likely the max I will get on my N network?  Any tips to improve....

If throughput is important I suggest you forget about using wireless with the NAS - not that it won't work, but that you will get speeds pretty much similar to what you're getting now, even with wireless-n.

With wireless-g - where the theoretical maximum is 54 mbps, I can get a consistent 20 mbps transfer speed - which will translate to perhaps 2.5 MB/sec, with wireless-n, where the theoretical maximum is 300 mbps, the best I can get is 80 mbps and that is constantly varying and frequently lower

With wireless networks the performance can vary wildly depending on the environment - wall construction, furniture, electrical appliances, microwave ovens, other wireless networks, cordless phones, surveillance cameras, game consoles, baby monitors - the list is endless.

None.

The advantage of 5GHz over 2.4GHz is it is less susceptible to intereference - by virtue of the fact that 5GHz transmissions are subject to higher levels of attenuation (loss of strength with distance and as it passes through walls & furniture) - so this works both for and against you.

Let's assume you live in an area with a high density of wireless networks - it is possible that no one else has a 5GHz network or cordless phone - and so there is no interference, it is also possible that at some point a neighbour will install 5 GHz equipment, and that because of the greater attenuation, his signal will not be strong enough to cause you a problem - BUT - your signal also suffers from attenuation so it is weaker at any given distance than a 2.4GHz signal would be, and the result is lower throughput.

You're caught between a rock and a hard place - use 2.4 GHz, get a strong (hopefully) signal, which may be subject to interference - or use 5GHz, get less interference, and hope that it remains strong enough to give you decent throughput.

The only way to get guaranteed throughput is a wired network.

By the way - if this sounds like I'm anti-wireless - I'm not, I'm just setting your expectations correctly - I've been using wireless for the better part of a decade since it was 802.11 with no prefix and had a maximum throughput of 1 mbps.  Wireless does a fantastic job where quick temporary connections and easy mobility are the main requirements (as with hotels, boardrooms, conferences, etc.) but - if what you want is reliablity and maximum throughput, in a location where things don't get rearranged frequently - think wired.

That was most likely WPA.  WEP is an older encryption that is not supported under 802.11n.

One thing to be aware of - the Intel 4965AGN card does not support 270 mbps when used on 2.4 GHz - only at 5 GHz - so, at least in your case, you might have the justification you need to go dual band

Your 4.5 Mbps throughput is roughly equivalent to 36 mbps - theoretically acheivable with 802.11g

Off topic - I'm sitting here with a Netgear WN111 adapter connected to a Netgear WNR2000 router at an indicated 300 mbps  - the router is visible through a doorway and no more than twenty feet away.  The best I can get in actual throughput is 50 mbps (QCheck) or 5.8 MB/s (NASTester 0.4) -

Intel decided not to allow the 4965AGN to use 40 MHz wide channels on the 2.4 GHz band, limiting it to a theoretical 130 mbps - with a 5GHz router the theoretical maximum from 130 mbps to 270 mbps - so - yes, the possibility exists that you could as much as double your throughput.

Please note the use of the word possibility, the reality might well be different - see my earlier post for reasons why.

To comment on Intel and their decision, as well as the use of 40 MHz wide channels - the 802.11n standard allows for 40 MHz wide channels on both 2.4 & 5 GHz, however, 40 MHz wide channels have the potential to create havoc in areas with existing networks using 20 MHz wide channels, and so any device configured for the wider channels is required to step back to a 20 MHz channel if it detects existing networks - this is known as "good neighbour" - so you have no guarantee of the wider channel even if your hardware supports it - Intel for reasons of their own decided that they would "mandate" good neighbour on 2.4 GHz.

Or could I get a wirless usb stick that would make my Wrt150N 300mps capable.   Would the stick work in conjuction with my iunternal card or proabably best to disable?  Any suggested optimal solutions is appreciated.

will a dual band router give me 300 mpbs one one function or will i need to router media on one and internet/e-mail on their other to take advanatge of the extra throughput?

First - just so that you know - you can edit & append your posts.

I've never used the WRT600N (or either of the D-Links) and on that basis alone I cannot make a recommendation - they may or may not suit your purposes, I'm also not in favour of having more than one router in a network, unless you have a specific need for multiple routers - so no, I would not use the WRT150N as a range extender or access point.

Linksys or D-Link - it's all the same to me - it's possible that either company makes a specific product that I might find attractive, for example D-Link's DNS series of NAS units, to my mind, are superior to Linksys' offerings, but I have seen nothing in their routers (either brand) that says "come buy me" - I generally buy my routers based on what's cheapest and on my favourite retailer's shelf when I walk through the door - and I have used both brands in roughly equal numbers.

There is also no way to predict what throughput you will get in a wireless network - the 300 mbps is a theoretical maximum, you'll never see it, at least not with current wireless-n product - I'd say the best you'll get is  approximately 80 mbps on any band - 2.4 or 5 GHz - what you'll actually get is dependent on the environment (and adapters) in which you're deploying it,

A dual band router is unlikely to do much for you - one computer will not connect to both bands simultaneously - you could force it with two wireless cards, but unless you're using cards that support teaming (which I haven't seen in a wireless card) there will be no advantage, and you could actually see reduced throughput - which is why, if you use a wireless USB adapter, I would suggest you disable the internal card - feel free to try it either way, who knows your results may differ from mine.

Ok - I think I got all your questions - let me know if I missed anything

Last edited by fordem (2008-12-15 03:18:40)

To my way of thought, many of the Amazon reviews are written by the man in the street, for the man in the street - I've seen many a rant written by someone who I can only describe as clueless, and for the most part I put little stock in them.

As far as I am concerned 270 mbps throughput on wireless-n is simply not achievable - sure your wireless client will tell you it's connected at 270 mbps (look at my earlier post, I've gotten 300 mbps connections), but it doesn't deliver 270 mpbs of THROUGHPUT - what matters, at least to me, is not the reported connection speed, but the actual throughput that you can achieve transferring data at that speed.

For the record - wireless-b is rated at 11 mbps and will tell you it's connected at that, but you'll never see much above 6~6.5 in a transfer, wireless-a & wireless-g are rated at 54 mbps, and again will tell you that they are connected at that speed, but you won't see more than 30~35.

The rated speeds are theoretical and never acheivable in practice - the highest documented throughput I have seen on wireless-n is I believe 125 mbps, an Intel card in an Intel test lab with a Netgear router.

You asked about the windows tool adding both bands together - in a normal system with a single dual-band wireless card, you can only connect to one band at a time, there is only one receiver.  Like I said earlier you can theoretically get dual connections, but only if you use two cards that support adapter teaming - which I have never seen in a wireless card (it's more of an enterprise server feature).

The next thing you need to recognize is that the connect speed that Windows reports bears no relationship whatsoever to the actual flow of data - here's a little trick you can try ...

Hold down the Ctrl & Shift keys & tap the Esc key - the task manager will open up, select the Networking tab - all the network connections will be shown, some of them will show Operational and others Non Operational, please note that even the Non Operational ones show a link speed - now transfer a file, a largish one that will take a couple of minutes - what does it show for Network Utilization?

Play with it some - see if you can get it above 50% for your wireless connection - let me know what happens.

Last edited by fordem (2008-12-15 04:47:52)

my downlaod windows at 1.60 MB/second
sometimes i can get 2.6 MB/s
I have heard of 4-5 and even 7 on wireles on the net.   Need more sepped and any suggestionson hardware changes is appreciated.