If wireless access points/routers/whatever advertise the speed of their device

quote:

---

In other words, if you have a 24 port gigabit switch, they should advertise 24 Gbps...or use their marketing terms like "50 times faster than wireless OMFGZ!!!"

---

you lost me... do you think because it's a 24 port switch, you get 24Gbps on each port? and not a gigabit for each port?

quote:

---

do you think because it's a 24 port switch, you get 24Gbps on each port? and not a gigabit for each port?

---

He's saying 1gigabit per port yields a theoretical maximum throughput of 24gbps for a 24 port switch, but only gets advertised as 1gbps (and rightly so). But wireless devices get to advertise their theoretical maximum throughput, so it's kind of "unfair" as a comparison.

It's probably nothing to get so angry about, though.

quote:

---

I'm not mad

---

I meant OP

Wait'll he figures out that even though that router has GB on the Lan and Wan, that the routed throughput isn't probably close to 1000mb. Which renders a ton of people who double their providers speed to over 100mb not getting anything near what they're paying for.

quote:

---

¿Que?

---

A gigabit router will put through closer to 1000mb than 100mb.

Users paying for 100 from their ISP will definitely be able to use it.

quote:

---

I realized my wording was wrong. SHould have conveyed 100MB router, less than 100MB. GB router, less than 1GB throughput.

For those of us on LUS, consumer GB routers aren't getting GB throughput.

My bad for the wording. The technicalities were wrong, but the jist is correct.

---

Your wording is still wrong, and so is the jist. To get the syntax out of the way first -- there is a huge distinction between MegaBYTE (MB) and MegaBIT (Mb), GB and Gb, etc. There are 8 bits in a bite.

Anyway, it sounded like you were first suggesting that there's enough layer protocol overhead from modem to router to ethernet client that 1,000Mbps ends up delivering real-world throughput at somewhere well below 100Mbps when referring to broadband. But even your clarification that suggests 100BASE-T ethernet would have any significant negative impact on a 100Mbps broadband connection is just wrong -- likewise for 1000BASE-T and 1Gbps broadband. A gigabit ethernet port is rated for 1Gbps. While there is some marginal loss to overhead, that happens at the packet level. Even a user's measured speeds may actually include this overhead, because every packet sent over the network contains control information as well as the user data itself, and the control information will always account for some small percentage of data as overhead -- even if you had Cat 6 cable coming from a Google Fiber modem straight to a 10Gb NIC.

Assuming you have:
a) A DOCsis 3.0 modem that matches or exceeds the number of channels your ISP delivers (ensuring optimal speed even during congested periods)

b) proper ethernet cable (Cat5e is pretty standard)

c) router with gigabit ethernet

d) client with gigabit NIC on an adequate bus

Barring ISP blunders, you're going to get the internet speeds you pay for. Not until you're actually talking about gigabit broadband itself do you face the issue of losing some Mbps due to overhead (but at that point, it's pretty negligible because you have Gb broadband for god's sake).

There are other bottlenecks to look out for, but they hardly affect straight broadband performance. By far the most common bottleneck is a hard drive. Mechanical hard drives are slow, especially those deployed in basic laptops or portable external enclosures. Even a basic NAS will use 2 or 3 ultra low power drives. Transferring files across your local network from one hard drive to another means your speeds will be limited to the slowest drive, whether it's the receiving drive's write speed, or the source drive's read speed. We're looking at 60-75MB/s (roughly 600Mbps) read and write speeds for general backup drives and basic laptop hard drives, and that's only when transferring large and often highly compressed files that don't represent the reality of file transfers on a local network. Gigabit Broadband subscribers may actually experience a hard drive bottleneck if they're downloading large files to their shitty 5400rpm laptop hard drive, but that has nothing of significance to do with a proper NIC or 1000base-t router.

Outdated NICs are another potential bottleneck. If you're using a 10+ year old computer, it's possible that your integrated gigabit NIC uses regular old PCI bus. PCI bus tops out at 133MB/s (or just over 1Gbps). However, with some loss due to overhead, in combination with other peripherals and components sharing the PCI bandwidth on the machine, the NIC itself can become the bottleneck despite it being rated for 1Gbps. This is largely not a problem anymore, since even the most basic of integrated NICs are going to be on the PCI Express bus, which provides more than enough bandwidth.

quote:

---

NAT throughput of off the shelf "dsl/cablemodem" routers

---

Theeere we go. Understood. I mistook you for another Tech board noob, which set off my ramblings. My apologies, there has been an influx of terrible misinformation about routers here lately Truth be told, WAN to LAN is something I've always taken for granted myself, as even a decent $50 router is still going to get you upwards of 500mbps throughput, though I recognize some are better equipped than others, and sometimes the router vendors "bend" the truth. As for the off-the-shelf gateways, I haven't looked at all of Cox's approved gateways closely, but last I had read years ago when I moved back to Central and was ISP/Router shopping, even their basic single-band 2x2 MIMO Docsis 3 gateways had at least 300-350mbps total throughput (Note: Cox's highest tier is 150mbps downstream, and that spec won't change as part of their "double speed" rollout happening right now. Granted, you have to hope that in the future Cox remains responsible enough to ensure they're deploying appropriately specc'd equipment to the customer on their end, even if the customer decides on their own to naively bottleneck their 150mbps connection with a potato of a router.

As for the lucky bastards who have Gigabit broadband, I am not familiar with what equipment the ISPs deploy or require to meet spec. But I guess the purpose of Gigabit broadband is more along the lines of "here's a box of all-you-can eat Internet buffet. You figure out how, and how much, to distribute it within your house."

pointy-haired boss problems?