Powerline Networking

livingsacrifice

Senior member
Jul 16, 2001
442
0
0
I've been using your basic run of the mill wireless G router and adapter for the last 5 years. Unfortunately was a requirement in a new house I'm living in not to have to drill holes through the wall to run LAN connections, my loss. The entire time using wireless I get maybe 1 bar of signal strength and I've tried about 4 different wireless adapters on my computer and 3 different routers, including a linksys preN one. I've tried moving to a closer location and problems started happening then too, I'm only about 50ft away from the router and only get 1 bar. Problem was whenever you download something that uses nearly all the bandwith, 300k or higher for longer than maybe 3 minutes, it will kick you off the wireless. I knew this was just a problem with wireless and since I had no other choice I went out looking. I found this product called Powerline Networking, first time I've heard of it, not normally good reviews but I ended up giving it a try and I will say its a big big improvement over wireless. Pings in games are now just like lan connection and the internet is a whole lot faster. I have yet to get booted off after using it a solid week.

Basically what you do is one side you put near your router, it hooks through your wall power socket, infact it HAS to be in the wall, no power strip. You run your cat5 cable to your router and that sides done. On the other side you do the same thing but just into your network card. I didn't even install the drivers and it came right up after I disabled my wireless networking. The price is kind of expensive I got the 2 adapter kit for 130 dollars but I prefer it way over wireless, doesn't work in all situations but for me it was the best connection. I dunno if anyone else has heard of these but they aren't bad, made by Netgear, I think Linksys and Dlink make some too.
 

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,563
432
126
It is Not popular because.

1. The price

2. Speed for LAN transfer sux.

3. Many times it does mot work well when the electrical system is Noisy.

Typically for this price a person can get two Wireless Devices that can be configured as WDS and cover bigger space in a much more flexible way than HPNA.

However, it solved your problem, so it Ended Good, thenall Good. :thumbsup:
 

livingsacrifice

Senior member
Jul 16, 2001
442
0
0
I didn't try local lan transfer. All I use my local lan for is the printer really. My computer has dual gigabit ports in it and I thought it seemed like it was faster than the wireless as far as speed went, dropping my connection on 300k/sec instead of extremely stable 500k/sec. The house is only 4 years old so electrical noise isn't really a problem right now. I could configure 2 wireless devices but I figured for the price and headache of setting it all up with WEP keys and MAC filtering I saved myself a lot of time.
 

dfnkt

Senior member
May 3, 2006
434
0
76
wouldnt have worried about the mac filter on the wireless side, its like watching someone right down a password, all you have to do is use the password. mac addresses are sent in the open and are easily spoofed.

Glad you solved your problems, its always good news :)
 

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,563
432
126
Are you aware that with HPNA there might be a neighbor that is on the same electrical grid with you that can plug a unit into his outlet and get you LAN signal too?
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
I think it's cool that you're trying out something new and posting the results.

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
I dunno if anyone else has heard of these but they aren't bad, made by Netgear, I think Linksys and Dlink make some too.

There are many different versions, with different characteristics. Which model did you try?

And how does it perform? You can test this using iperf version 1.7 for example:

server: iperf -s
client: iperf -c server -l 64k -t 15 -i 3 -r

where server is the name or IP of the remote computer

E.g., my better than average wireless-g results for comparison:

F:\tools\bench\iperf>iperf -c smallserver -l 64k -t 15 -i 5 -r
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to smallserver, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[628] local 192.168.0.186 port 3279 connected with 192.168.0.144 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[628] 0.0- 5.0 sec 12.1 MBytes 20.3 Mbits/sec
[628] 5.0-10.0 sec 12.0 MBytes 20.1 Mbits/sec
[628] 10.0-15.0 sec 11.4 MBytes 19.2 Mbits/sec
[628] 0.0-15.0 sec 35.6 MBytes 19.9 Mbits/sec
[628] local 192.168.0.186 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.144 port 1655
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[628] 0.0- 5.0 sec 11.6 MBytes 19.4 Mbits/sec
[628] 5.0-10.0 sec 9.75 MBytes 16.4 Mbits/sec
[628] 10.0-15.0 sec 10.3 MBytes 17.3 Mbits/sec
[628] 0.0-15.0 sec 31.7 MBytes 17.7 Mbits/sec
 

livingsacrifice

Senior member
Jul 16, 2001
442
0
0
Yeah I thought of that but we aren't on the same as a neighbors. Not to mention with the lack of people using them I think people would rather try and grab a wireless signal than a powerline since it's more common. Haven't tried bandwith benchmark testing but it still is faster.