Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

orb.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 327 posts

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#21

Post by avree »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

I did some experimentation with UniFi hubs and came to the conclusion that if you can give each device its own WiFi channel that would be ideal -- contention is that bad and often an uncontended channel with otherwise poor characteristics will beat a contended channel that otherwise looks good. The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi…

Unfortunately, Unifi only supports DFS channels (which is the only real way for 'each device to have its own wifi channel in a crowded area) on some of their models.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#22

Post by kjkjadksj »

jeffbee wrote: post #12
kjkjadksj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still get the best speeds over ethernet today because of how wifi standards are slow walked, both on the router and the device connected with the router. Ethernet standards are slow walked too of course but we are talking slow walking a 2.5g or 10g connection here, even otherwise crappy hardware is likely to have 1g ethernet and it’s been that way for at least 10 or 15 years.

If you want to transfer the contents of your old mac to your new mac, your best options in order of speed are 1) thunderbolt, 2) wifi, and 3) ethernet. You do not, in any sense, get "the best speeds" from ethernet. The market penetration of greater-than-1gb wired networks in consumer devices is practically nothing.

Yes thunderbolt is best but look at costs. Apple is selling a 4ft cable for $130. I have a ton of random cat 5e and cat 6 and they go for a couple dollars.

Now lets talk about my actual “old mac” and “new mac” Mid 2012 mbp and my m3 pro. The 2012 only can do 802.11n so not gigabit speeds. It does have a gigabit ethernet however.

Even if I was going m3 pro to m3 pro, I’m only getting full wifi 6e speeds if I actually have a router that makes use of 160hz channels. My router can’t. It is hard to even gleam router offerings to see which are offering proper wifi 6 because there are like dozens of skus sold even to different stores from the same brand getting slightly different skus. Afaik my mac does not support 160hz wifi 6 either.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#23

Post by kstrauser »

jeffbee wrote: post #12
kjkjadksj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still get the best speeds over ethernet today because of how wifi standards are slow walked, both on the router and the device connected with the router. Ethernet standards are slow walked too of course but we are talking slow walking a 2.5g or 10g connection here, even otherwise crappy hardware is likely to have 1g ethernet and it’s been that way for at least 10 or 15 years.

If you want to transfer the contents of your old mac to your new mac, your best options in order of speed are 1) thunderbolt, 2) wifi, and 3) ethernet. You do not, in any sense, get "the best speeds" from ethernet. The market penetration of greater-than-1gb wired networks in consumer devices is practically nothing.

This is so insanely wrong that I almost feel like we're being trolled. Yes, a direct Thunderbolt connection would be best. Failing that, a guaranteed 1Gb Ethernet connection, which is ubiquitous and dirt cheap, and has latency measured in microseconds, is going to wipe the floor with real-world Wi-Fi 7 speeds. And for what you'd pay for end-to-end Wi-Fi 7 compatible gear, you could be using 10Gb Ethernet, which is in a different league of stability and actual observed throughput compared to anything wireless.

I have Firewalla Wi-Fi 7 APs connected via 10Gb Ethernet to my router. They're brilliant, very expensive, very high quality devices. I use them only for devices which I can't hardwired, because even 1Gb Ethernet smokes them in actual real-world use.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#24

Post by ericd »

typpilol wrote: post #13
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is to not use it. You might think it's convenient to have your TV connect to Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going to make everything else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower. It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet that you possibly can than it is to follow the mo…

The reality is that most people only have a single cord coming into the house So they would have to do quite a bit of work to run cable. Also people living in apartments that cant just start drilling through walls. I'd say most ppl use wifi because they have too, not pure convenience

Eh flat Ethernet cables can easily be snaked all over with adhesive clips, and if you color match cable/clips/walls, it doesn’t look bad.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#25

Post by ttshaw1 »

I don't get what the point of the article is. Is the takeaway that I should lower the channel width in my home? How many WAPs would I need to be running for that to matter? I'd argue it's more important to get everyone to turn down TX power in cases where your neighbors in an apartment building are conflicting. And that's never going to happen, so just conform to the legal limit and your SNR should be fine. Anything that needs to be high performance shouldn't be on wifi anyway.

If you want to spend a really long time optimizing your wifi, this is the resource: https://www.wiisfi.com/

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#26

Post by mlinhares »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

I did some experimentation with UniFi hubs and came to the conclusion that if you can give each device its own WiFi channel that would be ideal -- contention is that bad and often an uncontended channel with otherwise poor characteristics will beat a contended channel that otherwise looks good. The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi…

Yeah, we built our home and i made sure whenever there would be devices on the wall there was an ethernet cable there, best decision ever.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#27

Post by tass »

jeffbee wrote: post #12
kjkjadksj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still get the best speeds over ethernet today because of how wifi standards are slow walked, both on the router and the device connected with the router. Ethernet standards are slow walked too of course but we are talking slow walking a 2.5g or 10g connection here, even otherwise crappy hardware is likely to have 1g ethernet and it’s been that way for at least 10 or 15 years.

If you want to transfer the contents of your old mac to your new mac, your best options in order of speed are 1) thunderbolt, 2) wifi, and 3) ethernet. You do not, in any sense, get "the best speeds" from ethernet. The market penetration of greater-than-1gb wired networks in consumer devices is practically nothing.

My isp-supplied router had 10gbe on both wan and lan sides. I swapped it for my own, but that is what modern consumer equipment looks like.

You can find a 2 port 10gbe+4 port 2.5gbe switch for just over $30 on Amazon.

If the run isn’t too long this can all run over cat5. Handily beats wifi especially for reliability but Thunderbolt is fastest if you only have 2 machines to link.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#28

Post by wlesieutre »

typpilol wrote: post #13
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is to not use it. You might think it's convenient to have your TV connect to Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going to make everything else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower. It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet that you possibly can than it is to follow the mo…

The reality is that most people only have a single cord coming into the house So they would have to do quite a bit of work to run cable. Also people living in apartments that cant just start drilling through walls. I'd say most ppl use wifi because they have too, not pure convenience

MoCA adapters are an option if you’re already wired for coax

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#29

Post by bobbiechen »

kulahan wrote: post #20
jeffbee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to transfer the contents of your old mac to your new mac, your best options in order of speed are 1) thunderbolt, 2) wifi, and 3) ethernet. You do not, in any sense, get "the best speeds" from ethernet. The market penetration of greater-than-1gb wired networks in consumer devices is practically nothing.

brb ima turn on my microwave halfway through your transfer

To this day I expect my wifi to drop whenever I hear a microwave, thanks to the one in my parents house: https://digitalseams.com/blog/microwave-ovens-wi-fi-and-http

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#30

Post by jerf »

ttshaw1 wrote: post #25

I don't get what the point of the article is. Is the takeaway that I should lower the channel width in my home? How many WAPs would I need to be running for that to matter? I'd argue it's more important to get everyone to turn down TX power in cases where your neighbors in an apartment building are conflicting. And that's never going to happen, so just conform to the legal limit and your SNR should be fine. Anything…

This sort of thing is definitely in the class of "are you experiencing problems? if not don't worry about it".

If you are experiencing problems, this might give you an angle to think about that you hadn't otherwise, if you just naively assume Wifi is as good as a dedicated wire. Modern Wifi has an awful lot of resources, though. I only notice degradation of any kind when I have one computer doing a full-speed transfer for quite a while to another, but that's a pretty exceptional case and not one I'm going to run any more wires around for for something that happens less than once a month.

Post reply on HN