How fast are transfers between two wifi computers on sharing?

[slicksilver]

I haven't transferred any files and if I did I cant remember what the speeds were then. Are wifi transfers as fast as transfers between giga switches connected computers?

Thanks

 

[Emulex]

no way. on 2.4ghz i only get 16.5MB/s copying files over explorer from a desktop to another (big avi file). Using cheap router/usb wifi stick.

gigabit i can peg that at 99% with ssd or raid

 

[pcgeek11]

Transfer files between my PC and Server via GB Switch on large files I se about 80 - 85 MB/s. Small files average between 55 - 70 MB/s. WiFi is going to be a lot slower probably between 5 - 8 MB/s

 

[VirtualLarry]

Wow. I get around 3MB/sec over wireless N (65Mbit/sec connect speed) to my NAS.

 

[Griffinhart]

I haven't transferred any files and if I did I cant remember what the speeds were then. Are wifi transfers as fast as transfers between giga switches connected computers?

Thanks

Not even close. Gigabit = 1000, .11n = 300, .11g = 54. And the Wifi speeds are purely theoretical. You won't get anywhere near those kind of speeds. Typically though, Wifi speeds are fast enough for most transfers. They are faster than most consumer internet connections and unless you are constantly copying multiple Gigs of data, you won't have an issue.

 

[JackMDS]

Playing with theoretical numbers taken from data Sheets and Wishful thinking does not represent reality.

Working well at close proximity 802.11g usually yields from 1.5MB/sec.-2.5MB/sec.

802.11n is in the YMMV category, many of them deliver 802.11g performance.

Some deliver up to 6MB/sec. I never saw any delivering more than 6MB/sec

P.S. I am talking about sustained functional file transfer not measures of short burst of meaningless transfer as done by some Network measuring utilities.

 

[Eug]

My best iPerf results:

Gigabit Ethernet: 936 Mbps (117 MB/s)
100BaseT: 93.7 Mbps (11.7 MB/s)
802.11n: 59.4 Mbps (7.4 MB/s) (20 MHz)
802.11g: 19.0 Mbps (2.4 MB/s)

For real world sustained wireless speeds, you can cut that number by maybe 20-50%, or even more at greater distance.

I can't really test my real world Gigabit Ethernet speeds very well because i don't have any drives that are fast enough to keep up.

I get around 3MB/sec over wireless N (65Mbit/sec connect speed) to my NAS.

That seems about right, 3-5 Mbps on 802.11n, and 1.5-2 Mbps on 802.11g. That's one of the reasons I haven't upgraded the rest of my network to 802.11n yet. 30 Mbps just doesn't impress me, as an upgrade from 15 Mbps. (My Macs don't use 40 MHz.)

 

[Emulex]

my macbook air 2008 does 270 - the 2007 model iirc only does 130/144'ish

pc does 300 using RALINK (AE/WUSB600n) usb stick - 16.5MB/s down or up.

It's not easy to setup 40hz channel - but once you do you should never see less then 8.5-9 and can do up to 20 (most i've seen on 2.4ghz) - 5ghz is faster iirc.

 

[Eug]

I guess I should have mentioned that my Macs are running only 2.4 GHz. Apple specifically disallows 40 MHz wide bands for 2.4 GHz operation. I'd have to get new 5 GHz-capable access points to get faster 802.11n speeds.

Apple also does not support non-standard WiFi implementations, but the actual hardware does if you run Windows on the Macs.

 

[Emulex]

yeah that was 2007 man. things have changed.

 

[Eug]

Please share then. I still see posts out there from 2009 and 2010 saying that 802.11n on 2.4 GHz networks doesn't work with 40 MHz on Macs.

Furthermore, if I activate 40 MHz support on my 2.4 GHz 802.11n network, it makes no difference whatsoever for my 2.26 GHz 13" MacBook Pro from 2009. Same goes for my 2.93 GHz i7 iMac from mid-2010.

It only makes a difference for my Windows 7 Acer.

 

[Emulex]

when the MC index is at 15 on 2.4ghz - the macbook air (old 120gb hard drive model) bumps to 270mbps (i suspect 300 with a short guard interval). It transfers hella faster too i'll get some numbers.

what are you seeing for MC index from your macbook? I'll have to walk downstairs to the basement and stand in the same room to get an equivalent 5ghz.

for 2.4ghz i'm running the buffalo airstation 40 wide at 630mw (default). for 5gz i have downstairs a WRT600n with DD-WRT (non professional).

 

[Eug]

PHY Mode: 802.11n

Channel: 1
Country Code: US
Network Type: Infrastructure
Security: WPA2 Personal
Signal / Noise: -12 dBm / -73 dBm
Transmit Rate: 130
MCS Index: 15

---

Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,5
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.26 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 3 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz

---

This is with Bluetooth off, too.

 

[Eug]

Could this be coexistence mechanisms kicking in? I have several other WiFi access points in the house (which are 20 MHz 802.11g). Also, the neighbours have WiFi access points running too, and I can detect them from my house.

If that is the case, then it's pointless running 40 MHz on 2.4 GHz here anyway even if it did work theoretically. Do you have other 2.4 GHz access points in your vicinity?

EDIT:

I tried moving my other detectable access points to channel 11, while keeping my 802.11n AP on channel 1. Makes no difference. However, I am currently sensing a whole bunch of other networks in the vicinity, and they are on channels 1, 6, and 10. (Dunno why they chose 10, but whatever.) So, no matter what channels I use, there will be overlap with my neighbours on 2.4 GHz.

 

[KlokWyze]

Playing with theoretical numbers taken from data Sheets and Wishful thinking does not represent reality.

Working well at close proximity 802.11g usually yields from 1.5MB/sec.-2.5MB/sec.

802.11n is in the YMMV category, many of them deliver 802.11g performance.

Some deliver up to 6MB/sec. I never saw any delivering more than 6MB/sec

P.S. I am talking about sustained functional file transfer not measures of short burst of meaningless transfer as done by some Network measuring utilities

Thank you. I'm reading all those 1st responses and I've never seen speeds like that with my 802.11G connection @ 54mbps. It's all theoretical...

That sucks to hear about N not being that great. I lol'ed when I saw 600mbps. No way..... I will definitely give N a shot next time I get a motherboard with N built in and the protocol/devices mature a bit.