PC Wi-Fi network speed too slowhow can I improve WI-FI speed?Will multiple switches slow transfer speedHow...
Can a player sacrifice a creature after declaring that creature as blocker while taking lethal damage?
What can I do to encourage my players to use their consumables?
Microtypography protrusion with Polish quotation marks
When obtaining gender reassignment/plastic surgery overseas, is an emergency travel document required to return home?
How to not let the Identify spell spoil everything?
Why is one not obligated to give up his life rather than violate Lashon Hara?
Why is it that Bernie Sanders is always called a "socialist"?
Is there a file that always exists and a 'normal' user can't lstat it?
Does Skippy chunky peanut butter contain trans fat?
Why is the "Domain users" group missing from this Powershell AD Query?
What language shall they sing in?
Broad Strokes - missing letter riddle
Critique vs nitpicking
Potential client has a problematic employee I can't work with
Does a paladin have to announce that they're using Divine Smite before attacking?
Why does 0.-5 evaluate to -5?
The No-Straight Maze
How can I play a serial killer in a party of good PCs?
Square Root Distance from Integers
What to do with threats of blacklisting?
Which RAF squadrons and aircraft types took part in the bombing of Berlin on the 25th of August 1940?
Renting a 2CV in France
Why are carbons of Inositol chiral centers?
Why do we have to make "peinlich" start with a capital letter and also end with -s in this sentence?
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
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
edited 4 hours ago
Spiff
77.7k10118163
asked 5 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.
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
edited 4 hours ago
Spiff
77.7k10118163
asked 5 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
edited 4 hours ago
Spiff
77.7k10118163
asked 5 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.
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
networking windows-10 wireless-router
edited 4 hours ago
Spiff
77.7k10118163
asked 5 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
asked 5 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
edited 4 hours ago
Spiff
77.7k10118163
77.7k10118163
asked 5 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 5 hours ago
Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad
1
asked 5 hours ago
Nabeel AhmadNabeel Ahmad
1
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.
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.
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 |
It shoild indeed be faster, but this really depends on other devices and interference.
– davidgo
4 hours ago
It shoild indeed be faster, but this really depends on other devices and interference.
– davidgo
4 hours ago
It shoild indeed be faster, but this really depends on other devices and interference.
– davidgo
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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:
- 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).
- Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed
iperfgets between the two machines.
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.
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
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
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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:
- 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).
- Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed
iperfgets between the two machines.
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:
- 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).
- Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed
iperfgets between the two machines.
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:
- 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).
- Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed
iperfgets between the two machines.
answered 4 hours ago
SpiffSpiff
77.7k10118163
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:
- 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).
- Perhaps the file transfer tool you're using is inefficient. It would be interesting to see what speed
iperfgets between the two machines.
answered 4 hours ago
SpiffSpiff
77.7k10118163
answered 4 hours ago
SpiffSpiff
77.7k10118163
answered 4 hours ago
SpiffSpiff
77.7k10118163
answered 4 hours ago
SpiffSpiff
77.7k10118163
77.7k10118163
add a comment |
add a comment |
Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nabeel Ahmad is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It shoild indeed be faster, but this really depends on other devices and interference.
– davidgo
4 hours ago