On 21/04/2019 18:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/04/2019 09:13, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2019 22:58, Erik the Pink wrote:
Lee Nowell wrote:
Yes maybe although wired us always more reliable. Having said that,
these wires I run several years ago it is only now that I have got
around to terminating them so since I bought the gear already
thought I might as well finish the job off


Fair enough, my point was just that we are probably now on the cusp
on the point where wireless connections are reliable enough.

But are they fast enough?

I can confortably store a large file on my home server and edit it
from a PC without copying it to the local hard disk, using a 1gb
connection that is independent of the other connections going on
around the house. Wireless on the other hand, has multiple devices all
on the same channel and competing for bandwidth, plus many bands are
in use by neighbours.

SteveW

You may be right, my wireless bandwidth is only about two times what the
disks in the server and PC can deliver.

The hardware raid 6 controller in our home server can saturate a gigabit
wired connection by itself as can a couple of our PCs with Raid 0.
Although it is not really required 99% of the time.

Although an 802.11ac wireless connection has a theoretical performance
of 1,300 Mbps, the typical, actual performance is, apparently, more like
200 Mbps and that is shared too.

Admittedly, most people won't have a home server at all and don't
typically hang 4 PCs and 2 laptops off it (usually at least 3 in use),
plus using multiple satellite boxes around the house, all sharing their
tuners and recording and timeshifting continuously to a single box. I
prefer those wired connections and the knowledge that there will be no
bottlenecks crippling recording or timeshift while transferring data
from server to PC or vice-versa.

SteveW