>get new AC1900 router
>AC1200 USB adapter
>hook everything up
>expect LAN speeds of a few hundred mbps (router and host PC are only ~20 feet from each other, one interior wall)
>45mbps up and down to the PC hardwired to the router
... are you fucking kidding?
Why are my transfers running at less than 4% of the rated speed, under almost ideal conditions?
Other urls found in this thread:
tomshardware.com
newegg.com
twitter.com
Is it a USB 3 port?
>category of cable
>nic card
>grabbing files from internet or lan
>if lan, see one and two
Please, don't be this autistic.
Disregard my post. You should get 100 mbps, not problem. Check drivers, wifi frequency, and usb port.
Aye, just tried a port on the front of my computer as well and got pic related, even slower
Next step is the adapter drivers. Reeeally hoping that's the issue
Oh and that's a RAM disk to RAM disk. Had it all set up since I thought going hard drive to hard drive might bottleneck it. Ha.
OP here. Installing the drivers for the adapter helped a ton - 124mbps down, 97 up.
That's much better, but that still seems really slow to me. Are wifi speeds in the real world really this much slower than their theoretical rates? On my old 802.11g router and adapter, I could get transfer speeds around 30-40mbps (between 50 and 75% of rated speed), but now I'm getting... about 9% of rated speed.
Am I crazy or is WiFi actually just this shitty?
Fuck this I'm not crazy, ac should be faster than this shit. Pic related is from some dip at pcworld.com testing a bunch of different wireless ac adapters, and these are all from 2014.
I should be getting at least 200mbps, if not more. What the fuck.
You are not crazy. WIFI is shitty unless you have proper antennae. A cheap as shit USB wifi adapter isn't going to cut it mate
Why does that bird have such little hands? It should be much larger given how big it's head is, weird.
Kek
Use iperf
I'm getting 42mb out of my tablet.
>Am I crazy or is WiFi actually just this shitty?
Only yours, mine running 400~700mbps all times. Which band and channel are you connected ? Double check your freq channel, might be too pulluted.
802.11ac is capable of very high speeds. However, to standard wireless clients, you are unlikely to ever sustain those speeds except in the most optimal situations.
That is, luck of the draw on good dual band wireless chipset. Having adequate antennae. The lack of overlapping channels from your neighbors. The lack of legacy 802.11b/g/n networks slowing shit down.
And then of course if you can get connected on 5 Ghz and sustain a good signal level it is still succumb to interference from microwave band harmonics higher up. More equipment is in the field on 5 Ghz so its starting to become cluttered like 2.4 Ghz is, too. ISP provided modem/router combo units are notorious for just setting stoop with random channel selection and bandwidth which shits up everything in neighboring homes/apartments/etc.
Lastly, TCP performance tends to suffer quite a bit on wireless networks due to higher tendency to encounter packet loss, constantly changing throughput levels, etc. What you are seeing is probably what you should expect for TCP connections as they never reach max throughput even on a wired LAN due to overhead. If you ran iperf for testing you could do tcp and udp testing to determine the quality of your uplink.
Alright alright alright, OP here.
Kinda solved. Actually mostly solved. Looks like it just takes a while for Windows/the adapter/the router to get their shit in gear and start transferring - once it's up to speed it gets about 250mbps (31MB/s) down and 230mbps (29MB/s) up.
That's still not anywhere close to the 500mbps-1gbps I was hoping for, but I suppose it is quite a bit faster than the 802.11g I was running before. The ultimate goal was to have this other network computer just hold the hard drive that's currently in my main PC so the main PC could be quieter (network addressed drive and all that).
But, it looks like actually running a cat5e/6 cable is going to be a better option, since I edit videos. Poo.
Windows says it's connected on 5GHz (no mention of 2.4GHz connection), and I am just about 100% certain that there are no other 5GHz networks anywhere in my neighborhood, it's all old people and horse owners.
I'll find a scanner program or something though, now that you bring up interference from other networks I'm curious.
Base wireless AC 40mhz 1x1mimo is only 200mbps. You need to select a full, empty channel and NOT have a stupid dongle wireless because those overheat and throttle
Well fuck me sideways. Every single network I can pick up, besides one, is ac. Apparently these old people keep more up to date than I thought.
Anyway, I was under the impression that ac routers/adapters could connect on both the 5GHz and 2.4GHz bands... Wasn't that the whole point of ac?
Would they throttle even after ~5 seconds of transferring? It seems to get up to around 200-250mbps and stay there, though I haven't transferred more than a few hundred MB at a time.
FYI 5ghz band coverage is almost half vs 2.4ghz. You might wanna have it less than 10 feet, walls included. I have mine around 10 feet distance more or less with one cement wall and wooden door between.
>Apparently these old people keep more up to date than I thought
You'd be supprised, if the ISP do all the installation after signup, you can guarentee the IPS gives them somethig midrange and possible top of the line if they uses the best package.
*ISP* typo.
Run a cat cable across your living room.
>Anyway, I was under the impression that ac routers/adapters could connect on both the 5GHz and 2.4GHz bands... Wasn't that the whole point of ac?
The thing about dual band is when the common one is crowded the other will serve as a backup, by default it will pickup 2.4ghz first, if signal is better it'll automatically switch to 5ghz which the range and connection quality comes to play. Personally whatever the reasons for 5ghz development is, 5ghz is more of a connection for mobile devices such as phones and laptop where physical connections are not available. Most people thinks 5ghz band is 2x speed and coverage, which i submit into kek mode.
I knew it was bad but I didn't think it was that bad. Fack. Guess I could've done a bit more research before spending $150 on networking equipment
>even though my internet connection is only 18mb down/2 up
Right, that makes sense. I know ISPs push renting the equipment because loadsa emone
At this point I'm thinkin about it. I think if I got a white cable and ran it tidy along the walls and molding, I could get it out there without too much fuss.
LET THIS BE A LESSON TO YOU ANONS: don't buy shit before you actually research it at least a little bit. It looks like gigabit ethernet can run ~850mbps (110MB/s) even on whatever ancient hardware these guys were using in 2009 ( tomshardware.com
Oh well. At least I have an up to date network now?
You could also have just bought two gigabit homeplugs. They probably won't actually get gigabit speed, but they'll usually get 500 mbps.
Yeah, powerline stuff probably would've worked too but I'm not too sure if my room is on the same circuit as the living room. That and if I were going wired, I'd just lay out a cable to guarantee a gigabit connection.
Either way that would've been a hell of a lot cheaper than buying all this ac stuff
You don't need to be on the same circuit, you just need both power outlets to lead to the same fuse box.
Nah man, you didn't just dump money into the sea. At least your mobile devices gets pretty good speed, like other anons said if you want real connection but cannot afford to have wires at every corners, get a homeplug. I have mine work even on a three-phase powered home. My 700mbps is for streaming steam games and fullhd movies from my desktop to my bed using a 2-in-1 netbook.
We told you wireless was a meme.
You didn't fucking listen.
Get an ethernet cable and call it a day.