Bond the whole 2.4 GHz band!
- Thread starter Razor512
- Start date
So creating more QRM where already the band is severely congested?
Er, not.
No more than we need, on our highways, a vehicle that is 3 traffic lanes wide.
Razor512
Very Senior Member
It depends, currently, the 2.4GHz band performance is getting worst. It is nearly impossible to achieve 256QAM, especially when your WiFi environment looks like this (mine): http://i.imgur.com/Rbmk0IP.jpg
With routers being so reluctant to use higher modulations, why not just use more channels when they are unable to use higher modulations. e.g., if the router can't use 256QAM, then why not use all available channels at 64 QAM in order to get some more speed out of the 2.4GHz band?
With routers being so reluctant to use higher modulations, why not just use more channels when they are unable to use higher modulations. e.g., if the router can't use 256QAM, then why not use all available channels at 64 QAM in order to get some more speed out of the 2.4GHz band?
re http://i.imgur.com/Rbmk0IP.jpg
It's not the number of SSIDs detected, it's how busy they are when you are wanting to be near that channel in your usage.
"channel utilization percent" is a term.
It's not the number of SSIDs detected, it's how busy they are when you are wanting to be near that channel in your usage.
"channel utilization percent" is a term.
Razor512
Very Senior Member
For me, in the evening times, my 2.4GHz goes from being able to reliably cover the whole house, to being a bit unreliable and slow (around 1mbit/s) if I am not either in the same room as the router, or in an adjacent room. Too many people using WiFi when they should be using Ethernet for the devices that support it.
This is all becoming more common, even when I go to fix computers, it is now more common to see people using WiFI for their desktop PC. Basically as people age getting new computers, they are discovering that they have WiFi support built in, and thus it is common for them to use it even if they have the router right next to their desk, so over the past 2 years, the 2.4GHz band in the area really went down hill.
The thing is in that case, if channels 1-11 could be used at the same time, it might hit 5+mbit/s instead. which would be useful for some mobile devices.
I do have an extra hotspot which I use to provide enough coverage for the 2 WiFI security cams (luckily the rest are wired), but if these devices could be made to use more channels, then I could probably get away with just the 1 router. (5GHz provides good enough coverage for the entire home using the R7000 router)
This is all becoming more common, even when I go to fix computers, it is now more common to see people using WiFI for their desktop PC. Basically as people age getting new computers, they are discovering that they have WiFi support built in, and thus it is common for them to use it even if they have the router right next to their desk, so over the past 2 years, the 2.4GHz band in the area really went down hill.
The thing is in that case, if channels 1-11 could be used at the same time, it might hit 5+mbit/s instead. which would be useful for some mobile devices.
I do have an extra hotspot which I use to provide enough coverage for the 2 WiFI security cams (luckily the rest are wired), but if these devices could be made to use more channels, then I could probably get away with just the 1 router. (5GHz provides good enough coverage for the entire home using the R7000 router)
Last edited:
Razor512
Very Senior Member
Wired it always fine, for 2.4GHz, some channels are better than others, but that changes throughout the day, though the auto channel selection seems to do a good job (many of the other routers in the area also do the auto channel stuff. Anyway, all of the devices that I really care about the performance, are all either wired, or use 5GHz.
The smartphone that is 2.4GHz only, is not an issue either since I only really care about notifications.
The cameras are all in the same room as an access point and thus they work just fine doing 640x480 video.
The only down side is that I have to run an AP for the 2.4GHz band when the 5GHz band doesn't need it
Other that, many people in the area complain about their WiFI performance (who are stuck with 2.4GHz).
It seems like with heavy congestion, a router and client that is able to just use the entire allowable 2.4GHz band will have an advantage when congestion is really high (especially for those of us in a densely populated area).
The smartphone that is 2.4GHz only, is not an issue either since I only really care about notifications.
The cameras are all in the same room as an access point and thus they work just fine doing 640x480 video.
The only down side is that I have to run an AP for the 2.4GHz band when the 5GHz band doesn't need it
Other that, many people in the area complain about their WiFI performance (who are stuck with 2.4GHz).
It seems like with heavy congestion, a router and client that is able to just use the entire allowable 2.4GHz band will have an advantage when congestion is really high (especially for those of us in a densely populated area).
azazel1024
Very Senior Member
No, not at all. If most people were using 60MHz, then you'd have even worse congestion, which would make performance worse than if most people were using 20/40MHz and they were fewer conflicts.
The MORE congestion there is, the worse it gets. So wider channels will reduce performance compared to narrower channels.
In heavily congested environments, using the narrowest channels possible INCREASES performance. Even if only YOU were using them, it would boost your performance in most cases. Narrower channels have higher signal strength, it is also less likely that someone else's transmissions will be stepping on yours. If everyone used narrower channels, there'd be massively less conflicts.
However, from the sounds of it, you need a couple of 5GHz access points and for the 2.4GHz only devices, unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about that except look at replacing them when you can.
With the nature of how wifi works, if part of the transmissions is swamped, it typically causes the transmission to have to be resent. Wifi spreads the transmission across a bunch of different carriers (38 for 40MHz? Or something like that, more for wider channels, less for narrower) each relatively narrow. However, it isn't really one entire data packet on each carrier to the best of my knowledge. That means if one of the carriers gets "lost" for whatever reason, it can impact the data payload on multiple carriers, resulting in that packet needing to be resent.
Think of it a little bit like three people lines up to walk down 3 aisles. All 3 people HAVE to be able to go at the same time. If someone butts in line in front of one of them, all three need to wait to start walking down the aisle. That is what 60MHz would be like (not the best analogy, but I am hoping I am getting it across a bit). In addition, because 60MHz has lower signal strength, it is like 3 wimpy guys there, so it is more likely that someone CAN "push them out of the way" to get in front of them.
If you are narrower, say, just a single bigger guy. It is harder for someone to "push them out of the way" AND what happens in the other 2 aisles doesn't effect them at all.
In cases where there isn't much going on, or just very occasional butting in line, the scenario where you've got 3 guys lined up to go down the 3 aisles is nearly ideal, because you can pack a LOT of guys down those aisles.
5GHz gets away with this because there is so much less interference, and if you test it, 20MHz 5GHz performance is actually better at extreme range than 80MHz performance, because it can have a higher modulation rate.
I haven't played with it too much, but on the 11n front with 20MHz vs 40MHz, there is a small portion of my property where 20MHz is faster than 40MHz. 5GHz starts crapping out about 130-150ft from my outdoor access point on 40MHz, at that distance I can get about 3-4Mbps download and 1Mbps upload from my iPhone 5. Get much further than 150ft and I lose the 5GHz connection completely (it won't go much slower before it just disconnects). If I switch to 20MHz on the AP, The performance download is about the same 3-4Mbps, but uploads hit closer to 2Mbps and I can eek out to about 180, maybe 200ft (this is fairly rough as I am counting mostly measured steps, measuring my stride length, so it is +/- 10% on those distances), it'll get even slower, down to about 1Mbps or so on downloads and a few hundred Kbps on uploads, but it WILL stay connected out further. I haven't played with 2.4GHz like this outdoors (because I don't want to be a D and be blasting out a 40MHz 2.4GHz network outside. My neighbors are relatively far from me, but it likely would conflict with their network, at least if they were outside trying to connect their phone to their own wireless network. 2.4GHz 20MHz channel 11 doesn't have a signal stronger than 80dBm anywhere on my property, other channels can hit as much as -68dBm at the corners of my property).
The MORE congestion there is, the worse it gets. So wider channels will reduce performance compared to narrower channels.
In heavily congested environments, using the narrowest channels possible INCREASES performance. Even if only YOU were using them, it would boost your performance in most cases. Narrower channels have higher signal strength, it is also less likely that someone else's transmissions will be stepping on yours. If everyone used narrower channels, there'd be massively less conflicts.
However, from the sounds of it, you need a couple of 5GHz access points and for the 2.4GHz only devices, unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about that except look at replacing them when you can.
With the nature of how wifi works, if part of the transmissions is swamped, it typically causes the transmission to have to be resent. Wifi spreads the transmission across a bunch of different carriers (38 for 40MHz? Or something like that, more for wider channels, less for narrower) each relatively narrow. However, it isn't really one entire data packet on each carrier to the best of my knowledge. That means if one of the carriers gets "lost" for whatever reason, it can impact the data payload on multiple carriers, resulting in that packet needing to be resent.
Think of it a little bit like three people lines up to walk down 3 aisles. All 3 people HAVE to be able to go at the same time. If someone butts in line in front of one of them, all three need to wait to start walking down the aisle. That is what 60MHz would be like (not the best analogy, but I am hoping I am getting it across a bit). In addition, because 60MHz has lower signal strength, it is like 3 wimpy guys there, so it is more likely that someone CAN "push them out of the way" to get in front of them.
If you are narrower, say, just a single bigger guy. It is harder for someone to "push them out of the way" AND what happens in the other 2 aisles doesn't effect them at all.
In cases where there isn't much going on, or just very occasional butting in line, the scenario where you've got 3 guys lined up to go down the 3 aisles is nearly ideal, because you can pack a LOT of guys down those aisles.
5GHz gets away with this because there is so much less interference, and if you test it, 20MHz 5GHz performance is actually better at extreme range than 80MHz performance, because it can have a higher modulation rate.
I haven't played with it too much, but on the 11n front with 20MHz vs 40MHz, there is a small portion of my property where 20MHz is faster than 40MHz. 5GHz starts crapping out about 130-150ft from my outdoor access point on 40MHz, at that distance I can get about 3-4Mbps download and 1Mbps upload from my iPhone 5. Get much further than 150ft and I lose the 5GHz connection completely (it won't go much slower before it just disconnects). If I switch to 20MHz on the AP, The performance download is about the same 3-4Mbps, but uploads hit closer to 2Mbps and I can eek out to about 180, maybe 200ft (this is fairly rough as I am counting mostly measured steps, measuring my stride length, so it is +/- 10% on those distances), it'll get even slower, down to about 1Mbps or so on downloads and a few hundred Kbps on uploads, but it WILL stay connected out further. I haven't played with 2.4GHz like this outdoors (because I don't want to be a D and be blasting out a 40MHz 2.4GHz network outside. My neighbors are relatively far from me, but it likely would conflict with their network, at least if they were outside trying to connect their phone to their own wireless network. 2.4GHz 20MHz channel 11 doesn't have a signal stronger than 80dBm anywhere on my property, other channels can hit as much as -68dBm at the corners of my property).
System Error Message
Part of the Furniture
I switched all my devices to 5 Ghz and didnt have to worry about congestion. You should consider doing that. 2.4Ghz just doesnt give much performance but only enough for the convenience of connectivity.
Best thing you can do for 2.4 Ghz is to set it to what a busy network should have, i.e. short preamble, increasing the beacon interval, tx bursting, wmm, interference management, lower tx power, etc
Best thing you can do for 2.4 Ghz is to set it to what a busy network should have, i.e. short preamble, increasing the beacon interval, tx bursting, wmm, interference management, lower tx power, etc
Razor512
Very Senior Member
I feel the same way, but it seems that so many desktop systems are beginning to come with WiFi that many people simply choose it over Ethernet. In some of the cases where I saw a user, using WiFi on their desktop, they had the router within around 3 feet of their computer. In almost all of those cases, they also had the Ethernet cable somewhere around their desk. They just literally just decided to use WiFI instead of connecting the cable (I always inform them of the performance benefits of Ethernet, and connect it for them).
The end result is that in many cases when someone in the area buys a new system, they are more likely to use WIFI.
For my smartphone, even 802.11g speeds would be enough for it since the most bandwidth intensive thing I use it for, is checking email. For my tablet, I wish it had an AC1300 radio because I sometimes sync content over using bittorrent sync.
The end result is that in many cases when someone in the area buys a new system, they are more likely to use WIFI.
For my smartphone, even 802.11g speeds would be enough for it since the most bandwidth intensive thing I use it for, is checking email. For my tablet, I wish it had an AC1300 radio because I sometimes sync content over using bittorrent sync.
azazel1024
Very Senior Member
Yeah, my tablet is the only device that I really WANT high wireless speeds. My laptop, well, yeah I use it, but 95% of the time I can get away with fairly pedestrian wireless speeds of maybe 10MB/sec and that would be plenty. Most places I am using it in my house I can easily wire it with gigabit speeds, but of course generally don't (but I don't have much in the way of wireless traffic most of the time and no outside wifi networks interfering with mine).
My tablet on the other hand, is a PITA to do wired (but it does have a USB3 port and I do have a USB3 GbE adapter) and I often transfer movies and such forth too it. So having something better than the 9.2MB/sec at most wireless capability that it has would be REALLY nice. I don't need AC1300 in it, but AC433, or even N300 would be very nice. One of the things I hope tablet makers FIX over the next generation or two of tablets. That and storage performance. Wifi interface and storage are two of the biggest weak spots of almost all midgrade and most high end tablets out there. The processors sure leave something to be desired compared to laptop or desktop processors, sure, but only so much you can do with physics.
However, it wouldn't cost much or take much extra power to bump from an N150 adapter to an AC433, or better yet, an AC867 wifi adapter as well as moving from frankly low performing eMMC solutions to at LEAST higher performing eMMC solutions, if not PCIe based NAND storage (the little that I can find, a low end eMMC 64GB package is only about $1.50-3 cheaper than a fairly high end 64GB eMMC package).
I kind of get why manufacturers cut corners, but it pisses me off that when you are spending $400-800 on a tablet, that they cheap out by $3-5 on what could significantly improve user experience (most performance usability issues aren't a slow CPU or GPU, they are slow storage/wireless performance loading webpages, games, applications, what have you).
My tablet on the other hand, is a PITA to do wired (but it does have a USB3 port and I do have a USB3 GbE adapter) and I often transfer movies and such forth too it. So having something better than the 9.2MB/sec at most wireless capability that it has would be REALLY nice. I don't need AC1300 in it, but AC433, or even N300 would be very nice. One of the things I hope tablet makers FIX over the next generation or two of tablets. That and storage performance. Wifi interface and storage are two of the biggest weak spots of almost all midgrade and most high end tablets out there. The processors sure leave something to be desired compared to laptop or desktop processors, sure, but only so much you can do with physics.
However, it wouldn't cost much or take much extra power to bump from an N150 adapter to an AC433, or better yet, an AC867 wifi adapter as well as moving from frankly low performing eMMC solutions to at LEAST higher performing eMMC solutions, if not PCIe based NAND storage (the little that I can find, a low end eMMC 64GB package is only about $1.50-3 cheaper than a fairly high end 64GB eMMC package).
I kind of get why manufacturers cut corners, but it pisses me off that when you are spending $400-800 on a tablet, that they cheap out by $3-5 on what could significantly improve user experience (most performance usability issues aren't a slow CPU or GPU, they are slow storage/wireless performance loading webpages, games, applications, what have you).
htismaqe
Very Senior Member
I know people have their own opinions and certainly the pricing model turns a lot of people off, but I like Apple because I know exactly what I'm getting. In general, they don't cut those corners you're talking about, even if it means inflating the price a little bit.
azazel1024
Very Senior Member
Mostly true*, but their storage performance has never been particularly impressive, even against other similar generation tablets.
*I do have to cop that I haven't really looked at Air2 or iPhone 6/+ reviews that included storage performance, but the Air1 and 5s and earlier were pretty generally at best average and looking at most tests, average tends to be about 2-3x faster than the low end stuff, but the best performers tend to be easily 2-3x faster than the average ones. The delta in storage performance is probably wider than any other performance metric when it comes to mobile devices. So "average" isn't necessarily very good.
*I do have to cop that I haven't really looked at Air2 or iPhone 6/+ reviews that included storage performance, but the Air1 and 5s and earlier were pretty generally at best average and looking at most tests, average tends to be about 2-3x faster than the low end stuff, but the best performers tend to be easily 2-3x faster than the average ones. The delta in storage performance is probably wider than any other performance metric when it comes to mobile devices. So "average" isn't necessarily very good.
L&LD
Part of the Furniture
Significantly increase the user experience? Stop using the tablet!
Built in obsolescence (it's not the $3-$5 savings - it's the $400-$800 they hope to make on you sooner).
Disclaimer: a computer without a physical keyboard and some kind of mouse isn't a worth turning on to use it.
Yes, you know what you're getting. Whatever apple wants you to have.
+1, I love my iPAD Air when I am traveling. Like all in one. At home I have monster desktop and laptops.
Similar threads
Similar threads
Similar threads
-
News FCC OPENS ENTIRE 6 GHz BAND TO VERY LOW POWER DEVICE OPERATIONS
- Started by sfx2000
- Replies: 2
-
-
WiFi 6 GHZ only works when Legion 5 is away from Netgear RAXE500 router
- Started by Sachb
- Replies: 10