If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: It's been several years since I've been heavily involved in setting up Wi-Fi networks, but my recollection is that the client rarely gets to choose. If the access point is broadcasting on Channel n, that's what gets used. The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific channel. The AP is not "automatic". some are. Define "automatic"... are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that your statement is false? it's very obvious what is meant. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: It's been several years since I've been heavily involved in setting up Wi-Fi networks, but my recollection is that the client rarely gets to choose. If the access point is broadcasting on Channel n, that's what gets used. The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific channel. The AP is not "automatic". some are. Define "automatic"... are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that your statement is false? it's very obvious what is meant. My statement, as far as I know, was very correct. I cannot figure out how an Access Point could have "automatic" channel assignment in any way that I'm aware of. My understanding of the meaning we were originally using was that the client will look for a specific AP by name, and will automatically switch to the channel on which that AP is avaiable. I no of no case where that can be reversed and have an AP automatically associate itself with the channel that a client wishes to use. Keep in mind that AP's service multiple clients... The fact is that clients scan for AP's, but AP's do not scan for clients. If you are thinking of something else, please explain what "automatic" means to you. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific channel. The AP is not "automatic". some are. Define "automatic"... are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that your statement is false? it's very obvious what is meant. My statement, as far as I know, was very correct. well, now you know it's wrong. I cannot figure out how an Access Point could have "automatic" channel assignment in any way that I'm aware of. it's very easy. scan the channels and see which ones are in use. pick one that isn't. in other words, pick the channel with the least interference. it works most of the time, but obviously, there are situations in which it will not work so well and others where it works very well. nothing is perfect. most of the time it's better than manual, particularly where neighboring base stations come and go, such as in an apartment building. if a new tenant moves in and picks say, channel 6, then the base station can automatically switch to something else rather than after someone notices there's a problem or does a survey. My understanding of the meaning we were originally using was that the client will look for a specific AP by name, and will automatically switch to the channel on which that AP is avaiable. that part is true. I no of no case where that can be reversed and have an AP automatically associate itself with the channel that a client wishes to use. Keep in mind that AP's service multiple clients... it's not that the base station picks a channel dictated by the client, but rather that the base station picks a channel that will be subject to the least interference. once the base station picks a channel, the client then does what you describe above and uses the selected channel. The fact is that clients scan for AP's, but AP's do not scan for clients. they scan for sources of interference. If you are thinking of something else, please explain what "automatic" means to you. see above. here are a few screenshots: http://cloud.tech-recipes.com/wp-con...wireless-tab.p ng http://documentation.netgear.com/wnr.../images/Wirele ssSettings_T.jpg http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/image...nksys_wrt320n/ linksys_wrt320n_basic_wireless.jpg |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific channel. The AP is not "automatic". some are. Define "automatic"... are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that your statement is false? it's very obvious what is meant. My statement, as far as I know, was very correct. well, now you know it's wrong. Sounds reasonable. Why didn't you just define what you meant when asked politely instead of being a butthead? Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to *only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's dumb. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Floyd L. Davidson wrote: It's something that works just fine if there are only one or two being used. But just imagine a PJ showing up at a press conference expecting rapid transfer of images... and discovering that there are 47 other PJ's with wireless enabled. Oppps. Only 3 of the channels in the 2.4Ghz band can be used at the same time, and all it takes is one fool choosing a channel 3, as an example, to wipe out the entire lower half and limit it to only two channels at a time. With 30 or 40 users standing in line for packet time, data transfers will be just exceedingly slow! A dialup modem from a laptop would be way faster! A dialup modem manages an upload of at most 33.6 kBit/s (for a 56k modem). A WiFi (SOTA 2003) manages between 6 and 54 MBit/s on a channel. 6 MBit/s = 6144 kBit/s 6144 kBit/s / 48 PJs = 128 kBit/s (assuming there is only one single channel available and it's at it's slowest speed because the modem is far away behind thick walls. I.e. worst case) 128 kBit/s = 3.8 * 33.6 kBit/s = A dialup modem at it's best would be about 4 times slower than WiFi at it's very worst --- even worse than the scenario Floyd painted. Not true. In which case you would be able to show us the math and the circumstances, under which that would not be true. But you're just handwaving ... very wildly. Not that the truth or reality would have any chance against a pointless Floyd rant filled with speculation and missing basic knowledge. Apparently I hit it just about on the head with the 48 PJs. So ... which press conference was that? Or did you pull that number from your ass? If the bit rate works out to 4x, then it's probably just about the right number. There is *never* going to be a smooth transition between any two of the 48 clients. Obvious. None of the cameras are interested in talking with another camera. And that being true there will never be any kind of transaction, smooth or otherwise, between any 2 of the 48 clients. Nobody said "transaction"... it's the *transition* from one client to the next that will never be smooth. There will never be a time when at least 10 or so clients are not trying to get access. Unless one of them has a received signal strength that is more than 6 dB greater than the sum of the others, the AP cannot detect a single client. So none of them get a connect, they all time out and take a random sleep. Of course by that time another group is ready (after waiting for a random period), and the story repeats itself. Eventually luck might allow one client to connect. That is going to work to some degree up to 4 clients per channel, but with more than that the chances of any client actually getting a connection start to be very slim. Instead there will virtually always be contention, and instead of being 4 times faster than a dialup, it would probably be about 10 times slower... at best! So 3 channels at 54 MBit/s can't keep up with 48 clients which sporadically try to pass data through them to the outside. Correct. I see. Probably not, because you don't seem to know how it works or why and have no interest in learning eitehr. I wonder how they managed with 10 MBit ethernet and a bunch of computers on the same cable ... Ever wonder why they developed routers and switches? Since the press conference will have enough base stations at close distances to the PJs, we can assume 2-3 channels at 54 MBit/s, giving 48 PJs (wow, must be a huge press conference!) 3,3 MBit/s. (which is quite more upload per PJ than most households have, even on fast connections). A 22 MPix JPEG will take ~15 seconds, but you'll probably reduce the size anyway, and get 3 or 4 seconds/JPEG. Never tried any of this stuff, have you! :-) No, I've never been to your mythical press conference with 48 PJs all using WiFi, as one of the PJs, with a network set up as incompetently as you describe --- probably because *you* don't get to set up wireless networks at something more important than a cleaning brigade for washing the walls behind the mirrors. .... PS: Unless you can provide proof, it's EOD. Poor kid. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific channel. The AP is not "automatic". some are. Define "automatic"... are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that your statement is false? it's very obvious what is meant. My statement, as far as I know, was very correct. well, now you know it's wrong. Sounds reasonable. Why didn't you just define what you meant when asked politely instead of being a butthead? i didn't think it needed explanation. it's obvious what automatic means. with all the networking experience you say you have, i'm surprised you even asked, and given your propensity to nitpick and argue, i assumed you were playing word games. Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to *only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's dumb. wrong again. you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
On 2012.09.25 15:09 , nospam wrote:
you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option. It really is. Since everyone seems to allow their wifi station to pick the channel (based possibly on the traffic at that time and then no longer changing) I'm better off alone at 8 or 9. I get splashed to be sure, but not near as bad as if I stay on 1, 6 or 11. When there's little other traffic I can xfer at a steady 48 to 64 Mbps. When there's a lot of other stations up, it drops to less than 8 for 50% of the time and no better than 24 for the rest. (And often the rate is in the handful of kB/s range). It also depends a lot on one or 2 neighbors and whether they've got the whole house on WiFI. From here I can see 8 other WiFi stations using 2.4 GHz WiFi - that translates to how many clients... 10, 20? More? -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific channel. The AP is not "automatic". some are. Define "automatic"... are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that your statement is false? it's very obvious what is meant. My statement, as far as I know, was very correct. well, now you know it's wrong. Sounds reasonable. Why didn't you just define what you meant when asked politely instead of being a butthead? i didn't think it needed explanation. it's obvious what automatic means. with all the networking experience you say you have, i'm surprised you even asked, and given your propensity to nitpick and argue, i assumed you were playing word games. Because such an "automatic" is not normally used in commercial setups. It may sound good to home owners, but it's not a good idea at all. Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to *only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's dumb. wrong again. you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option. You clearly haven't understood the significance of the bandwidth used by a WIFI unit. Any other choices simply *increase* the interference. It makes no difference what your neighbors do, choosing Channel 3 is *never* a reasonable choice. Never! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.25 15:09 , nospam wrote: you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option. It really is. Since everyone seems to allow their wifi station to pick the channel (based possibly on the traffic at that time and then no longer changing) I'm better off alone at 8 or 9. I get splashed to be sure, but not near as bad as if I stay on 1, 6 or 11. You get interference, if you choose Channel 8, from anyone that chooses any channel from 4 to 12. If you choose Channel 11 the only other choices that will affect you are those from 7 on up. All you have done by choosing Channel 8 is perhaps double the amount of interference. When there's little other traffic I can xfer at a steady 48 to 64 Mbps. When there's a lot of other stations up, it drops to less than 8 for 50% of the time and no better than 24 for the rest. (And often the rate is in the handful of kB/s range). It also depends a lot on one or 2 neighbors and whether they've got the whole house on WiFI. From here I can see 8 other WiFi stations using 2.4 GHz WiFi - that translates to how many clients... 10, 20? More? Not really. Compare the signal strengths and simply ignore anything that is 10 dB lower than what your own signals are. Generally you'll find that most of the other stations you see on a scan are actually too weak to be of any significance. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: i didn't think it needed explanation. it's obvious what automatic means. with all the networking experience you say you have, i'm surprised you even asked, and given your propensity to nitpick and argue, i assumed you were playing word games. Because such an "automatic" is not normally used in commercial setups. that means your knowledge about networks is limited. It may sound good to home owners, but it's not a good idea at all. it's actually a very good idea because most people have no idea what channel to pick and will probably leave it at the default, which means everyone will be on the same default channel and cause more problems for each other. having the selection be automatic spreads it out, without the user having to figure out what to do. not everyone is a geek. most aren't. even many of those who are geeks probably don't know what to pick. Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to *only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's dumb. wrong again. you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option. You clearly haven't understood the significance of the bandwidth used by a WIFI unit. Any other choices simply *increase* the interference. nonsense. anything 5 channels or more apart will not cause interference (actually less in the real world but i'm sure you'll disagree). it certainly won't increase it if you pick something other than the magic 3 channels. It makes no difference what your neighbors do, it most certainly does. choosing Channel 3 is *never* a reasonable choice. Never! absolutes always have exceptions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D600 | Me | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 22nd 12 10:43 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 63 | July 10th 12 02:07 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 07:27 PM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 01:35 AM |