Timeline for Why such a large discrepancy between theoretical and real Wifi speeds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 12:29 | comment | added | Zac67♦ | Full-duplex Ethernet CAN'T have collisions as there's only one sender and one receiver in a segment. Additionally, there's no way to detect/signal them. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 10:55 | vote | accept | Eiver | ||
| Jun 7, 2017 at 10:15 | |||||
| Jun 6, 2017 at 10:55 | vote | accept | Eiver | ||
| Jun 6, 2017 at 10:55 | |||||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 15:07 | comment | added | YLearn | CSMA/CA has no relation to RTS/CTS. They are two entirely separate mechanisms. Generally RTS/CTS (or more often CTS-to-self) is protection for legacy wireless systems in the area (namely 802.11b as it does not understand OFDM). It is also sometimes used to alleviate hidden node problems or for traffic management. CSMA/CA is used even of no form of RTS/CTS is present. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:52 | comment | added | Eiver | * Gigabyte P35W V3 | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:41 | comment | added | Eiver | Ad 2. I thought RTS/CTS was optional and stations would start using it only if a lot of collisions were detected by the AP. Ad 3. For the client I use Gigabyte P38W V3 and the actual negotiated speed reported by the OS was 866 Mbit/s (2 streams). Ad 4. It might be that my environment is more noisy than expected - I can measure that. That leaves us with point 1 - half-duplex vs full-duplex. Could that alone account for real/theoretical=28% or am I missing something here? | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:07 | history | answered | Ron Trunk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |