|
| The wireless "feels" as fast as a 100MG wired link, but it isn't. I can move large database files across the wireless link without feeling I'm waiting too long--these are 30mg files. I estimate they move in 30 seconds(wireless) instead of 15 seconds(wired). 802.11b would take several minutes to move the files. It is much closer to wired in "feel" and performance than it is to the old 802.11b.
I'd rather do wired any day.....but the lightening brought up by DG below is a concern. I've been told there is a way to protect it, but I don't know what that is. Wired runs are limited to 300 feet. I originally planned for my 150' link to be temporary, but after running several months, I probably won't ever 'get around to' putting in a wire...... as it will involve going under a slab of cement, and this wireless link is working better than I ever thought it would.
Speed: This is 802.11a, using channel bonding, link is 108MG BUT.... after overhead, packet loss, etc real throghput is 45-55MG. Real throughput on wired is about 90MB. The wireless link was about 4-5 miles where I did the test, plus it was two hops (four panels). I used PassMark PerformanceTest software for the test. (free download, but it costs to test the network--I paid).
The fellow who introduced me to these panels claimed he had 72MG links at about 15 miles....and I jsut thought in my mind "Liar, but I'll take a fraction of that." Turns out he was correct. I have a 108MG link at 12 miles, and I'll be going for a link well over that in a few months. At first, I discounted Tranzeo's claims as "optimal conditions" type of claims, but they have been pretty realistic as to what they do in real usage. (distance and speed).
As I stated earlier, I tried a different brand before trying Tranzeo. Absolutely no comparison between the brands. I've understood there are other brands that do well, also.
| |
|
Can we do this over again.....wireless router distance?
