James Pifer wrote: >> General note: scp is great for real-life use over unprotected networks. >> But because there is the overhead of encryption and decryption, scp can >> be limited by processor power at one end or the other of a link, rather >> than raw throughput (especially if the network card itself requires a >> lot of processor time to do its stuff). This means it's not the best >> choice for measuring anything other than scp throughput. > > Good point. I did not take into consideration the wireless encryption > being done. Using ttcp I got these results: > > 11M = 4.48 Mbit/sec +++ > 54M = 8.68 Mbit/sec +++ > > On a regular 10/100 NIC I get 87.03 Mbit/sec +++ > > With or with encryption overhead that is significantly faster than the > wireless connection. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > James > Dumb question - are there any other users using the same access point? I would have expected 50M to be faster then what you show, but I do not expect it to be as fast as the wired connection. If I remember correctly, there is more "overhead" in a wireless connection, and that eats some of the bandwith. Also, other users on the same access point are sharing the access point bandwith, and that can cut down the bandwith you can use. You run into the same problem on a wired connection if you are using a hub, but not if you are using a switch or router. To make matters more interesting, you may also have more processor overhead with the wireless connection if you are using WEP or WPA. For a lot of NICs, the encryption/decryption is done in software. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
