Re: Throughput riddle
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:41:05 +0000
Bonno Bloksma <b.bloksma@tio.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Responding to one part of your mail. The other parts have been covered in other responses:
>
> > I was originally using one of the common 1/6/11 channels, and I switched to 3 since I saw a lot of other stations on those channels.
> > This may have resulted in some improvement, but I'm still stuck locally as above.
>
> Be aware that by doing this you have created interference with even more wifi networks then before. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels
> If you select just channel 1, 6 or 11 you will have only interference with other networks on that one channel. By selecting an "in between" channel 3 you now have interference from both the channel 1 and the channel 6 networks.
> Usually best is to see where the weakest networks are, on 1, 6 or 11 and place your wifi there.
>
> In the 5GHz band there a lot more non overlapping channels and because of the lower reach the chance of interference is lower as well. However, because of that you might need more transmitters as well.
I'm curious about this. I see that lots of sites claim this to be the
correct approach to channel selection, apparently based largely on a
Cisco articlef rom 2004:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150502223736/http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/technology/channel/deployment/guide/Channel.html
OTOH, some argue that these results are mainly relevant to enterprise
contexts, but less so to typical consumer environments:
http://superuser.com/questions/443178/is-it-better-to-use-a-crowded-2-4ghz-wi-fi-channel-1-6-11-or-unused-3-4-8
Everyone explains the theory as you've given it, and I suppose it makes
sense, but theory is no substitute for actual empirical evidence. I
suppose that for best results, I would have to benchmark throughput
across my links while on different channels. And even if I get better
throughput on 3, I'd still have to consider whether it's worth it, in
light of possible negative effects to my neighbors.
Thanks,
> Bonno Bloksma
Celejar
Reply to: