Tjyylli

Why didn't the 2019 Oscars have a host?

Could a warlock use the One with Shadows warlock invocation to turn invisible, and then move while staying invisible?

Is there any danger of my neighbor having my wife's signature?

Possible issue with my W4 and tax return

What's the oldest plausible frozen specimen for a Jurassic Park style story-line?

Plausible reason for gold-digging ant

Is `Object` a function in javascript?

Subsurf on a crown. How can I smooth some edges and keep others sharp?

What does an unprocessed RAW file look like?

Is there a verb that means to inject with poison?

In harmony: key or the flow?

Square Root Distance from Integers

How do you funnel food off a cutting board?

How to not let the Identify spell spoil everything?

What is a good reason for every spaceship to carry a weapon on board?

Potential client has a problematic employee I can't work with

What to do with threats of blacklisting?

Why are carbons of Inositol chiral centers?

Calculate of total length of edges in Voronoi diagram

The No-Straight Maze

Translation needed for 130 years old church document

Critique vs nitpicking

Why did Luke use his left hand to shoot?

How to play a serial killer in a game with good PCs?

PC Wi-Fi network speed too slow

how can I improve WI-FI speed?Will multiple switches slow transfer speedHow can I improve the transfer speed on my home network?Slow Wi-Fi LAN speedfile transfer speed over wifi homesharing too slowWhy doesn't Windows network utilise the hardware's capabilities?Download went much faster than my connection speedSlow network speed until restart of PCLocal LAN Speed is SlowWireless network speed is much slower than wired network

0

My laptops have 2 MebiBytes/sec transfer speed between them even though my laptops have 130 megabits/sec Wi-Fi connection link speed on a 300 megabits/sec router. Shouldn't the transfer speed be around 10 MebiBytes/sec?

networking windows-10 wireless-router

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

New contributor

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It shoild indeed be faster, but this really depends on other devices and interference.
  
  – davidgo
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

My laptops have 2 MebiBytes/sec transfer speed between them even though my laptops have 130 megabits/sec Wi-Fi connection link speed on a 300 megabits/sec router. Shouldn't the transfer speed be around 10 MebiBytes/sec?

networking windows-10 wireless-router

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

New contributor

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It shoild indeed be faster, but this really depends on other devices and interference.
  
  – davidgo
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

My laptops have 2 MebiBytes/sec transfer speed between them even though my laptops have 130 megabits/sec Wi-Fi connection link speed on a 300 megabits/sec router. Shouldn't the transfer speed be around 10 MebiBytes/sec?

networking windows-10 wireless-router

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

New contributor

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

New contributor

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

New contributor

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

edited 4 hours ago

Spiff

77.7k10118163

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

New contributor

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 4 hours ago

Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad

1

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1

If you have two laptops as clients of the same band of the same AP, and they are maintaining a 130 megabits/sec signaling rate in both the client-to-AP and AP-to-client direction, the effective throughput should be around 5 MebiBytes per second.

When two Wi-Fi clients talk to each other, they do not send their packets directly to each other. Instead, every packet is relayed by the AP. So every packet transits the RF channel twice, which cuts the effective bandwidth in half.

Then, TCP over IPv4 over Wi-Fi, with 802.11n frame aggregation, is only about 60% efficient (maybe up to almost 80%, but I'm using 60% to be conservative here).

So…

Wireless-to-wireless cuts bandwidth in half: 130 Mbps / 2 = 65 Mbps

Wi-Fi overhead leaves only 60%: 65 Mbps * .6 = 39 Mbps

megabits to MebiBytes conversion is about 1/8.4: 39 Mbps / 8.4 = 4.6 MebiBytes/sec

So, your throughput should be able to be about twice what you've measured. Likely explanations:

1. Perhaps you're not really averaging the 130 Mbps signaling rate (maybe you looked at the speed your clients are getting when transmitting to the AP, but not the speed your AP is getting when transmitting to your clients).


2. Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed iperf gets between the two machines.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1409404%2fpc-wi-fi-network-speed-too-slow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

1

If you have two laptops as clients of the same band of the same AP, and they are maintaining a 130 megabits/sec signaling rate in both the client-to-AP and AP-to-client direction, the effective throughput should be around 5 MebiBytes per second.

When two Wi-Fi clients talk to each other, they do not send their packets directly to each other. Instead, every packet is relayed by the AP. So every packet transits the RF channel twice, which cuts the effective bandwidth in half.

Then, TCP over IPv4 over Wi-Fi, with 802.11n frame aggregation, is only about 60% efficient (maybe up to almost 80%, but I'm using 60% to be conservative here).

So…

Wireless-to-wireless cuts bandwidth in half: 130 Mbps / 2 = 65 Mbps

Wi-Fi overhead leaves only 60%: 65 Mbps * .6 = 39 Mbps

megabits to MebiBytes conversion is about 1/8.4: 39 Mbps / 8.4 = 4.6 MebiBytes/sec

So, your throughput should be able to be about twice what you've measured. Likely explanations:

1. Perhaps you're not really averaging the 130 Mbps signaling rate (maybe you looked at the speed your clients are getting when transmitting to the AP, but not the speed your AP is getting when transmitting to your clients).


2. Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed iperf gets between the two machines.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163

add a comment | 

1

If you have two laptops as clients of the same band of the same AP, and they are maintaining a 130 megabits/sec signaling rate in both the client-to-AP and AP-to-client direction, the effective throughput should be around 5 MebiBytes per second.

When two Wi-Fi clients talk to each other, they do not send their packets directly to each other. Instead, every packet is relayed by the AP. So every packet transits the RF channel twice, which cuts the effective bandwidth in half.

Then, TCP over IPv4 over Wi-Fi, with 802.11n frame aggregation, is only about 60% efficient (maybe up to almost 80%, but I'm using 60% to be conservative here).

So…

Wireless-to-wireless cuts bandwidth in half: 130 Mbps / 2 = 65 Mbps

Wi-Fi overhead leaves only 60%: 65 Mbps * .6 = 39 Mbps

megabits to MebiBytes conversion is about 1/8.4: 39 Mbps / 8.4 = 4.6 MebiBytes/sec

So, your throughput should be able to be about twice what you've measured. Likely explanations:

1. Perhaps you're not really averaging the 130 Mbps signaling rate (maybe you looked at the speed your clients are getting when transmitting to the AP, but not the speed your AP is getting when transmitting to your clients).


2. Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed iperf gets between the two machines.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163

add a comment | 

If you have two laptops as clients of the same band of the same AP, and they are maintaining a 130 megabits/sec signaling rate in both the client-to-AP and AP-to-client direction, the effective throughput should be around 5 MebiBytes per second.

When two Wi-Fi clients talk to each other, they do not send their packets directly to each other. Instead, every packet is relayed by the AP. So every packet transits the RF channel twice, which cuts the effective bandwidth in half.

Then, TCP over IPv4 over Wi-Fi, with 802.11n frame aggregation, is only about 60% efficient (maybe up to almost 80%, but I'm using 60% to be conservative here).

So…

Wireless-to-wireless cuts bandwidth in half: 130 Mbps / 2 = 65 Mbps

Wi-Fi overhead leaves only 60%: 65 Mbps * .6 = 39 Mbps

megabits to MebiBytes conversion is about 1/8.4: 39 Mbps / 8.4 = 4.6 MebiBytes/sec

So, your throughput should be able to be about twice what you've measured. Likely explanations:

1. Perhaps you're not really averaging the 130 Mbps signaling rate (maybe you looked at the speed your clients are getting when transmitting to the AP, but not the speed your AP is getting when transmitting to your clients).


2. Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed iperf gets between the two machines.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163

answered 4 hours ago

SpiffSpiff

77.7k10118163