|
Yay! The first time I can share something!
For the wired side, routers have a WAN-to-LAN throughput rating that I ran across years ago using the old WRT54G routers. Some of the earlier ones had terrible throughput, but later revisions were the way to go.
Back then, I found SmallNetBuilder had a nice chart of their test results. I looked for my example WRT54Gs and I didn't see any. I also didn't see anything about your 3Com.
If you do end up shopping for a new router, check out your prospective replacement on that chart.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: So I am asking out of pure curiousity, what to you get in El Cheapo equipment today, in real, measured speed, as opposed to technical specs?
In general, I can get close to spec on modern equipment. Certainly fast enough to handle anything I need.
I have a wired desktop I use for most things. On wireless I have 3 laptops (mine, wife, work), 2 phones, 2 Roku, and 1 Kindle. The ISP is Spectrum via cable and I'm paying for the average service. My router is about 2/3 of the way on the scale of worst to best for a home router (above average), and we have no throughput problems.
However, the caveat is that a connection is only as fast as the slowest segment between the end points. So for mainstream sites, I get very good throughput. For sites in the hinterlands? Not so much.
I looked up your router -- it was first released in July 2004. Given how router technology has changed since then, I'm not surprised at your results.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote:
Yet I am curious: Is the maximum speed of 30 Mbps (as least on a single connection - maybe two PCs could have 30 Mbps each) due to an outdated router
Yes, it can be. That router is old and probably only has a single core, single thread CPU and may not be able to handle the load. Keep in mind that the router must simultaneously handle your transfers, firewall (if it has one), scheduling tasks (like updating DNS and routing tables), etc.
But are a lot more variables at play. As an example, it makes some difference if the four LAN ports are internally built as a switch, a hub, or have independent connections with independent physical layer chips. If they are using a hub, bandwidth and speed take a hit since each port will have to be checked from time to time only to see if there is a cable connected.
Also, the OSI layer at which your transfer is occurring has an impact. The higher the layer, more headers the router must unpack to find the destination and other information about each packet.
Worst case scenario, your router could also be under attack when you tested and was busy defending itself.
However, most likely, being a very cheap router, is that the manufacturer tricked you with claims that it is a 100Mbps router when, in fact, that is the burst speed it is capable of. The sustained connection speed is much smaller and, in your case, seems to be 30Mbps for a single connection.
If your transfer is to/from the internet just be patient and use the router, it will be at least marginally safer to your computer if something goes bad.
If your transfer is between two devices inside your network, just take the router out of the equation. Transfers will go faster as you found out.
Best regards
|
|
|
|
|
THAT is an old router. Many of those older routers had a max throughput of 30Mbps (on the bus!) and I suspect you are going to find it will never get past that max speed.
To utilize your 100Mbps, I would suggest a new router ( gigabit speeds) which will serve you far better.
|
|
|
|
|
I see others have replied that it could be an older router. I wanted to add that I've seen this issue on newer routers too, due to bad QOS settings.
Many routers have QOS settings these days, and some automatically determine your max bandwidth, and others you have to put in manually. I've seen this when you put in a manual bandwidth number that is lower than your actual bandwidth.
I found this out when I enrolled in a higher teir with more bandwidth, but my speed tests weren't showing the increase. Had to fix it to the the new tier and presto. Or turning off QOS all together will fix the problem too.
|
|
|
|
|
I had something similar happen a couple of years ago, except I had a slightly different setup - Netgear router and 3Com OfficeConnect gigabit switch. Three PC's, two servers & printer plugged into the 3Com switch.
One day the wife starts complaining about lousy internet speeds. My PC and servers OK. A few days later I started seeing the same problem. Reboot things, seems OK, then over a couple of days goes west again, to the point that it's unusable. Replugged things into the router and presto! All good. Replugged back to the 3Com switch and once again speeds are woeful.
Replugged back to the router and gently retired the 3Com switch to the recycle bin. I wouldn't mind betting your OfficeConnect thing is sick.
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I've read several times in the Internet that carrier companies routers are terrible and that having a proper router improves a lot of things.
Lately I've got a problem due to my carrier restoring factory defaults at my router remotely (without noticing me of course) and I've lost access to several remote options that I had configured.
All up and running again, but it made me think on those reads in the past.
I could get a router and install it in my office, but my question is the following one: my carrier installed a router that connects to a coaxial cable and most of the routers out there connect only through an ethernet cable...
Said that I've seen some tutorials were the new router is connected to the old one... 
If I have to connect the new router to the old one... how all the port routes and other configurations work? Is there a proper way to set all that up? I mean, I would like to avoid my carrier to leave me out of my server again.
Thank you all for your comments!
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
In your case, your problem would be very probably happening again if your provider screw your setting again.
No matter if router in the middle or not.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to free yourself from your ISP, you need to get a cable model that is JUST a modem, and get your own router.
This has three benefits:
0) Your ISP can't change your router's settings any more (you have to properly configure the router of course).
1) You can buy a MUCH better router than the piece of crap that your ISP rented to you.
2) You can use different DNS servers - your ISP tracks your activity because your current cable modem/router is configured to use the ISPs DNS servers (and most of the time, you can't change this setting).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Check if your carrier supplied router supports "Modem Mode", this makes it behave as just a modem, without any routing etc, and just one RJ45 connection will work on it.
Then you connect your own router to that one RJ45.
|
|
|
|
|
"Modem Mode" is sometimes (perhaps more commonly) called 'Bridge Mode', and quite a few US and UK carriers' hardware supports it - certainly Comcast's and Spectrum/Times Warner's do in the US. They differ in how you set it up. For Comcast, you have to ask them to apply the settings remotely; for Spectrum, the relevant settings are directly accessible to the user - though you do need to know what you are doing, since a number of individual settings need to be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joan,
I've always used a purchased modem. Cheaper then renting theirs. What you have is a modem/router combo.
My current setup: ( All several years old, eBay )
Cisco DPC3008 ( significant is DOCSIS 3 and a good rep.)
Linksys EA6350 ( has 1000Mb CAT5 and fast WIFI - I like the DLink better for setup... but this works except it runs hot if left on a flat surface )
that connects to several devices in this room, then to a 1000Mb switch in another room. That connects to a DLink DIR 601 NOT to the WAN port. On the same WIFI SSID and password ( I think different channel ) set as a DHCP client.
This upped the WIFI in the front of the house from iffy to 50Mb/s. And it auto switches to the best connection.
Once I got Comcast to see the new modem ( you call them and tell them you changed, and ( I think ) tell them some numbers on the modem - easy ). I "don't see it" it's "just an Ethernet CAT5 connection".
You do have to set up the router to pick up their DHCP and DNS servers ( or some DNS servers ) but that is pretty simple. And it's yours.
Wired thru the Gigabit switch I just got 200Mb/s ( weather and ??? dependent. )
So, ( I would ) get your own modem - at least DOCSIS 3, connect to your own router - consider if you use WIFI or CAT5 - if WIFI consider where the router can sit and where walls are. Rita doesn't like how the DLink looks, but it gives near line of sight and that more than doubles the speed.
|
|
|
|
|
while (🍓)
{
🍐;
}I'll get my coat, but only because I have to go to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Pear programming. I hate that! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're 🍌🍌!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the significance of some subject lines being displayed in green, rather than blue?
|
|
|
|
|
That someone checked in code without testing it?
|
|
|
|
|
Messages with up votes are displayed in green.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: If you want to use your member number as a Lounge name, why not convert it to hexadecimal? That will be unique at least! 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, all member names are unique.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Great idea! I will do that.
I have participated in network discussions since long before WWW: We had NetNews (aka. Usenet) for years, and before that, there were bulletin boards. Not all were national, or even distributed on several machines: The first discussion forum I used was run on one central computer, serving 1500 Minnesota high scools through modem lines. When I started college, all Norwegian universities had a common forum on a Decsystem-20, where we had fierce arguments as students do...
In all serious discussions, I find it more essential what is in an argument, than who makes it. No argument is more valid because it is made by my favorite politician. Or favorite author. The contents of the statement is what counts, and how well it is justified or founded. An esteemed professor will probably have better justifications for his claims - but only within his field(s). A nuclear scientist is no better than my neighbour in commenting cultural conflicts in South-East Asia. Both may make justified claims, but not because they are, say, an artist, or a professor in a completely unrelated field.
I want people to judge my arguments as such, by their contents, detached from my person. If my argument is invalid (or less valid) because I am Norwegian, or male, or have 35+ years of working experience, then it is no more valid if made by a 30 year old female US citizen. If you need to know my complexion, eye and hair color, number of brothers and sisters and birthday to judge (or enjoy) what I am writing, that is your problem, not mine!
I do not see clearly what you gain by me replacing one anonymous ID with another anonymous ID. Neither tells my body height or political affiliation. I guess that if I chose some "normal" personal name, it would be easier for you to "profile" me in your head, so that you can more easily judge arguments from me in light of that profile. You will probably learn to recognize my anonymous hex number as well, because there aren't that many hex named users. You could even learn to recognize my decimal member number!
In any case, changes will be made. I will probably create an all new user, whose profile (not in the techical sense, but as a mapping of opinions, statements and attitudes) is independent of the old one. I guess that before I make the switch, I need some training in writing one-liners: I have had lots of negative comments about my explanations, justifications my claims etc., so I will try to avoid that in the future. If someone wants to ignore / reject statements of mine that they do not like, it is easier to do so if I haven't justified my claims.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: I do not see clearly what you gain by me replacing one anonymous ID with another anonymous ID
It makes it easier to follow discussions, or rather the train of thought that spans many different discussions. A number is less easy for the brain to recognise.
I agree with your statements above that one.
Member 7989122 wrote: I guess that before I make the switch, I need some training in writing one-liners: I have had lots of negative comments about my explanations, justifications my claims etc., so I will try to avoid that in the future.
Pity, I like it when people do explain. I also like those stories on how things were done in the "old times". Maybe I should've told you so earlier?
Are you sure those people didn't disagree with you on something you may have stated rather than having disliked getting an explanation as such?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
As a side note, it's good to be green! 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
