Page 1 of 2
Wireless Networking
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:59 am
by VLSmooth
I'll need to set up a network that spans multiple floors soon. Anyone have any good wireless networking advice?
I've been using this:
http://www.tomsnetworking.com/ProductGu ... reless.php
and reading reviews.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:06 am
by VLSmooth
Also, I've been reading the
Need to Know section.
So far:
wireless access point = switch
wireless router = router, whee~
seems I'll need bridges too...
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:10 am
by VLSmooth
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:34 am
by Jason
wtf are you talking about? All you need is one wireless router on your top floor.
and here I thought you were an ece ...
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 7:24 am
by quantus
I agree with Jason. Maybe you'd care to elaborate on the extensiveness of this network? How many floors are you talking? What are the dimensions of these floors? I think the main reason you think you need that setup is because you have two desktops in different places. You're probably better off just getting a wireless card for the distant desktop or both desktops rather than spending more for so many AP's and bridges. I doubt you have enough computers that cause too much interference. At most, I think you might want to get another AP so you have 2 channels instead of 1. That should clear up any noise problem you have (real or imagined).
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:02 am
by VLSmooth
- Yes I am an ECE
- Depends on the build of the house, just found out it's mainly sheetrock for the floor, so I should be ok. If it had metal (like a relative's house), I'd need a bridge for between floors (via the stairwell). The townhouse is 3 floors too.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:00 pm
by Dave
what is the disadvantage for wireless? higher packetloss/pings?
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:15 pm
by Jason
Dave wrote:what is the disadvantage for wireless? higher packetloss/pings?
disadvantage compared to what? wired?
well the major problem would be getting wires to three floors, kind of unsightly, especially since vinny has such a nice place.
ignoring the wire issue, the most annoying thing with wireless is signal strength. it comes and goes depending on the amount of interference. what sucks for me is that I'm on the bottom floor of an area that has really high levels of background interference (my cell phone didn't work when I first moved in, had to buy a new one) so I lose connection regularly even though i'm about 15 ft from my router. the other problem is the obvious, lower bandwith. I used to have a b and couldn't stream most video, I have a g now and I can stream most things, but not all, for example the second build of 'where's the package' didn't stream when I was showing it to some friends.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:51 pm
by George
Jason wrote:well the major problem would be getting wires to three floors, kind of unsightly, especially since vinny has such a nice place.
Actually, running wires inside the walls can be reasonable in some cases. In my parents' house, we added several telephone, cable, and network jacks over the years. Because the house was large we tended to run the wire from the wall jack all the way up to the attic, where we'd have a splitter to connect all the wires from various ends of the house. In something as narrow as a townhouse, you should be able to group all your jacks along a common wall and just run wires up that single wall.
I'm not sure how many computers Vinny wants to hook up, but if it's just the two desktops he had last time I was at his place, which are presumably not going to move around, running wires to the two rooms might make be a better option (no interference, better transfer speeds). Wireless would make more sense if a laptop were involved, or if the computers are expected to move around regularly. Actually, the best solution would be to have both. Put the stationary computers on wires, and run a line to a wireless router up on the top floor.
I agree that running wires outside the walls tends to look tacky, so if your wall structure makes running a vertical line impractical, all wireless is the way to go.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:34 pm
by Jonathan
Location and antenna quality are what you need for a home network, not APs and bridges. The difference between a cheap card and a expensive one is usually the antenna quality. Get decent antennae and you'll be fine.
For me, the network is generally the limiting factor for bandwidth, not the wireless. Latency and dropped packets aren't an issue. What is annoying is connection dropping. XP has some kinda bug that makes a wireless connection drop every so often. I hate that.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:55 pm
by VLSmooth
Unfortunately, wires aren't an option between floors.
- I have a half attic which connects with the 3rd floor
- I can really drill through the floors, and if I could, it's highly discouraged
- Wiring to the stairwell is hella annoying.
That said, I plan on getting a wireless router since my current ones suck ass (one loses connection once a day, the other has a dead port, loses connection every few days, etc), but I'm not sure which brand/model to get. If a decent signal can reach my HTPC on the first floor (connected to the HDTV), I'll be happy. If not, I might need to go the bridge route. Adding a computer to the 3rd floor is also an option.
As for my current computer situation, I have:
- Shinomori, main computer, 2nd floor
- Misao, HTPC, 1st floor
- VLSmooth, dvd-r, cd-rw, extra space, 2nd floor
- Unnamed, skeleton of a PC which George returned the CPU for months ago and is missing a motherboard
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:15 pm
by Jonathan
Look at reviews for signal strength and buy a good one. Fiddle around with location. If that doesn't work, buy an aftermarket antenna and go to town. I doubt you'll really need a bridge for a townhome.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:54 pm
by VLSmooth
Any review sites you'd recommend (ex. Tom's Networking).
Also, has anyone messed with PCI wireless cards/antennas? Getting an AP per box sounds ridiculous, but might provide much better bandwidth. Streaming IS important to me with all the videos I have.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:57 pm
by Jonathan
Why would having an AP provide any better bandwidth than a client card?
Personally, I have USB for desktop wireless instead of PCI. USB gives you more degrees of freedom when dealing with local fades, because the antenna is on a cord.
I look at CNET reviews after I bought client cards. I wished I had done so before. They have some tests on signal strength; the SpeedStream I bought scored particularly low.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:27 pm
by quantus
VLSmooth wrote:If a decent signal can reach my HTPC on the first floor (connected to the HDTV), I'll be happy. If not, I might need to go the bridge route.
I fail to see the difference between a bridge and a wireless card in this case. Both are going to transmit a wireless signal just the same. If one has noise, so will the other. What you might want to do is get a router with two antennas and replace one with a directional antenna that you beam straight down. This should get you plenty of signal to you HTPC.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:31 pm
by Jonathan
I think he's saying he'll have an AP on his stairwell or something between the two floors that will serve as a repeater.
I agree, spiffy antennas are the way to go.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:33 pm
by Jonathan
VLSmooth wrote:Any review sites you'd recommend (ex. Tom's Networking).
Also, has anyone messed with PCI wireless cards/antennas? Getting an AP per box sounds ridiculous, but might provide much better bandwidth. Streaming IS important to me with all the videos I have.
Don't get an AP per box, get a USB/PCI card per box.
How often are you streaming from multiple machines simultaneously, though?
A nifty setup I'd actually like to have in my home would be hub + ethernet-to-wireless bridge. It'd save on goddamn configuring my USB card all the time, and both my computers could share the connection without having to route traffic through one or the other. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this at the time so I bought the USB device. I guess the one advantage with the USB wireless is that it cost about half of what a bridge + hub would ($80 + $20). For the same price I could just buy two USB devices. Though if I had the ethernet-to-wireless bridge, I could occasionally use it for PS2 online gaming, which would be nice. If I had three computers in the same place, though, it'd totally be worth it.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:53 pm
by VLSmooth
The bridge would be to increase the range / serve as a repeater (which costs $500+ making it not a reasonable option).
Also, I'll definitely look into Jonathan's suggestion.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:01 pm
by quantus
VLSmooth wrote:Any review sites you'd recommend (ex. Tom's Networking).
Also, has anyone messed with PCI wireless cards/antennas? Getting an AP per box sounds ridiculous, but might provide much better bandwidth. Streaming IS important to me with all the videos I have.
Ummm, the pci wireless cards tend to be a PCMCIA to PCI adapter and a PCMCIA wireless card so reviews of a similar PCMCIA card should be sufficient... From what I've seen of USB wireless devices like Jonathan mentions is that the antenna is not very good at all and there's often nowhere to attach a better antenna.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:05 pm
by Jonathan
quantus wrote:From what I've seen of USB wireless devices like Jonathan mentions is that the antenna is not very good at all and there's often nowhere to attach a better antenna.
While true, is this any different for PCMCIA devices?