802.11g Throughput?

It's rated at less than 11Mbit/Sec, but varies drastically depending upon conditions.

:)

Someone can correct me if I am wrong.
 
11 Mbps, 54 Mbps, 108 Mbps. Those are signalling rates, not throughput numbers. .11g has a 54 Mbps signalling rate in the best client/AP association cell. Throughput is degraded for a number of reasons but right off the top you chop 30-40 percent because it is using CSMA/CA. Best case scenario for a good .11g WLAN association is about 25+ Mbps actual throughput, node to node. Start adding multipath, interference, obstructions and it will vary from location to location, perhaps even a few feet difference.
 
Actually you need to do some reading up. .11g signalling rate, native, is 54 Mbps. What your referring to isn't any standard actually. DLink and the like call it 802.11b+. It uses a different modulation (PBCC) type than .11b at 11 Mbps (CCK) and is only supported by AP's/client devices with Texas Instrument silicon.
 
Anything Mbps is not a signaling rate. It's a transfer rate, and I understand that .11a's throughput can get up to about 27Mbps so I'd assume G isn't any worse.
 
DSR is usually displayed as bits per second, in the case of 802.11 gear it's megabits per second. Disagree if you wish but you'll be wrong if you do. Google is your friend here. As far as .11a, i've benched it at over 27 Mbps but your generally correct that they are pretty close to each other in real world throughput.
 
Go read your IEEE documents people. Ktwebb is right here. 54mbps is the raw data rate (or signaling rate), you'll never get that because of the CSMA (think of it like a hub) and intereference among other things.

In the future, read the documentation made by the people who created the standard before you post inaccurate information that you THINK is correct.
 
Straight from IEEE:

(COMPUTERWORLD) - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE) has approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs that will have a true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec., far lower than 54Mbit/sec. raw data rate initially billed for the standard.
Click to expand...

Article is from http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/story/0,10801,81450,00.html?nas=PM-81450

They go on to say:

Li estimated that that in mixed 802.11b and 802.11g networks running standard TCP/IP Internet protocols, this will reduce actual throughput to 10Mbit/sec. -- while pure 802.11g networks will have actual data rates of around 20Mbit/sec.
Click to expand...

I am repeating what I have read from good sources and I have tested my own .11g wireless on TCP/IP and got 11Mbit/sec which is why in his situation for all intents and purposes I quoted him about 11Mbit/sec throughput.

Maybe I didn't/don't understand the question, but that was my post to the best of my ability and I don't need your input about needing to read documentation before giving my opion. This is a public board and I asked that if I was wrong that I be corrected.

:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by flav3rsav3r
Straight from IEEE:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(COMPUTERWORLD) - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE) has approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs that will have a true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec., far lower than 54Mbit/sec. raw data rate initially billed for the standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Ok...so what they're saying here is that while 54mbps is the raw data rate , the actual throughput is closer to 20mbps. I'd say 20mbps is the average. 25-26 is about the max. They said 54mbps was the raw data rate, so did I, so did ktwebb. We also both said your actual throughput is in the 20mbps range.




They go on to say:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Li estimated that that in mixed 802.11b and 802.11g networks running standard TCP/IP Internet protocols, this will reduce actual throughput to 10Mbit/sec. -- while pure 802.11g networks will have actual data rates of around 20Mbit/sec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am repeating what I have read from good sources and I have tested my own .11g wireless on TCP/IP and got 11Mbit/sec which is why in his situation for all intents and purposes I quoted him about 11Mbit/sec throughput.
Click to expand...

The 10mbps they're estimating is when you have both B and G clients connected to a G access point. I think maybe you got confused here. Pure-G networks are different from B/G mixed mode networks. Basically, when you introduce a B client onto the network they cant keep up with the pace at which the G clients are talking, so everyone has to slow down.

Originally posted by flav3rsav3r
Actually a .11g is rated around 22Mbit/sec and the throughput is less than 11Mbit/sec.
Click to expand...

See...here's where you're wrong, and again I think it's because you're confused about mixed mode and pure-G environments. 54g is RATED at 54mbps. The actual throughput is max maybe 26mbps.

What you said here becomes more of a reality when you have a mixed-mode environment.

Maybe I didn't/don't understand the question, but that was my post to the best of my ability and I don't need your input about needing to read documentation before giving my opion. This is a public board and I asked that if I was wrong that I be corrected.
Click to expand...

You're right. This is a public board. You did ask to be corrected if you were wrong. You were corrected, but you posted your incorrect information again and told the person who corrected you that he was wrong, when he was in fact correct. That's why you got corrected again. If you took my comment as a flame against you, I'm sorry. TrueBuckeye guoted the same article as you did, but he understood what they were saying correctly. I think you simply misunderstood the article.

There's other articles out there that explain this which you might understand better. As ktwebb said, google is your friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top