On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 23:30 -0430, Carlos Marcano wrote:
> Now; I want to buy a wireless router. I am on a low budget (who isn't?
> ;) ) so I am considering a few devices with nice wireless performance,
> also in the N spec of wifi, but -if I want to keep the budget low-
> they only have 4 fast ethernet ports. I use for internet acces a
> cellular based modem (lame down and upload speeds but only option
> where I live). It would be connected to one of the new router's lan
> ports. Then I would connect port 2 of this new device to one of the
> Dlink's (configured as a mere switch) gigabit ports and voila! that's
> it. If I get it right I think I will have: 3 gigabit capable ports
> availables from the dlink where I will connect my home's 3 pc's (which
> use gigabit nics) and which would be able to tranfer files from each
> other to gigabit speeds (or as practically possible) and 2 fast
> ethernet ports available from the new device to connect any other
> device which works at that speed and, of course, the wireless access
> provided also from this new device. Am I right?

Yup, this is basically exactly what I do.

Fact is, the N spec of Wifi pretty much never saturates a fast ethernet
connection in real world use.

Top speed most people see is around 50-70Mbps of REAL bandwidth (with G
you're lucky to get more then about 20Mbps).

Fast ethernet OTOH regularly hits the advertised rate of 100Mbps, so
you're in the clear there.

As for gigabit, it makes a WORLD of difference. Even in systems that
aren't optimal (i.e. the north bridge to south bridge connection is
saturated) I still regularly see 200-300Mbps speeds.

Gigabit itself is indeed capable of the advertised rate, I've benched
some servers we have here at work at ~125MBps transfer speeds, that's
pretty much exactly 1Gbps.

TTYL

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.