1 |
On Tuesday 28 Mar 2017 23:00:12 Alarig Le Lay wrote: |
2 |
> On mar. 28 mars 21:19:29 2017, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
3 |
> > Which part is to blame? The secondary router boasts 1300Mbps on 5GHz |
4 |
> > WiFi, so I assumed it could deal with 150Mbps on cat5e ethernet cable. |
5 |
> > The power consumption is about 4.5w, which seems a bit flimsy. |
6 |
> > Or maybe the primary router is thottling speed when in bridge mode? Is |
7 |
> > this possible at all? (And if so, what could be the purpose of such |
8 |
> > measure? *spooky*) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> You will never reach 1300Mbps on Wi-Fi, it’s some commercial bullshit. |
11 |
> First of all, check if you have a gigabit switch on your TP-link, it’s |
12 |
> not impossible to have a 100M one. And, if you have a gig switch, use an |
13 |
> RJ45 cable, the only cheap and efficient medium if you need bandwidth and |
14 |
> latency. |
15 |
. |
16 |
As Alarig says, 802.11ac rarely sees more than 200Mbps in real life, over |
17 |
short distances, with no interference and only a single client connected. |
18 |
Through walls you're better off with 2.4GHz |
19 |
|
20 |
Assuming the switch ports on the router are 1Gpbs, check on the PCs and on the |
21 |
router that it is operating in Full Duplex mode, both on the bridged modem |
22 |
side and on the PC side. Replace the Cat5e cables if it is not and try again. |
23 |
|
24 |
Finally, I have experienced some domestic routers coming to their knees at |
25 |
high throughput. Their SoC does not have the capability to process packets |
26 |
through the firewall and perform routing without becoming the bottleneck in |
27 |
the network. Both throughput and latency increases in these cases. The only |
28 |
solution is to buy better quality hardware. |
29 |
-- |
30 |
Regards, |
31 |
Mick |