100 mbit router = bottleneck ?

schpongo

Honorable
Aug 25, 2012
5
0
10,510
Im planing on upgrading my home network with a home server. I have got a fritzbox 7270 (300 mbit wlan) with a integrated 100 mbit switch. All the cables in the house are cat 7 and i want to use a gigabit switch between the server and a 300 mbit access point. And all the pcs would be connected over wifi.
So my question is, is the router my bottleneck with the slow 100 mbit switch?
 
Potentially. It just depends whether your other components are actually capable of exploiting the Gigagit network. While the AP is spec'd at 300Mbps, it's often the case you don't get anywhere near those speeds in real life, and why the manufacturer may use a 10/100Mbps switch. And of course, your wired devices need to be using Gigabit adapters as well. But if all you do is 99.9% internet access, which is almost always well below 100Mbps, again, it doesn't matter.

So yes, under ideal conditions, it’s best to not be limited to 100Mbps on the router’ switch, but whether it matters depends on many other variables.

 
Well it gets complicated again. Let's say both the client and server are using wireless. And we'll even be generous and assume the wireless is capable of delivering 150Mbps actual throughput. Problem is, wireless is half-duplex, meaning only two wireless stations can be communicating w/ each other at any given time on the same freq/channel. During that period, all other wireless clients must WAIT! And that means the effective throughput via the wireless router is HALVED (~75Mbps) between the wireless client and wireless server!

I should note, MIMO technology is designed to mitigate this somewhat by multiplexing the radio for individual wireless clients. But that doesn’t always work, or work well, and requires the wireless adapters support MIMO as well. So I tend to dismiss it as a consideration, but a purist might argue it should be.

So in general, if you want Gigabit speeds, you minimally need a Gigabit switch and probably need to keep the backup server wired, and if possible, the clients wired too, or perhaps staggering access to the backup server when using wireless for maximum efficiency.
 

schpongo

Honorable
Aug 25, 2012
5
0
10,510
The serve would be wired but i get ur point. It would probably be easier to give the the few members of the network local hdd to make backups over usb or firewire. This would probably be easier but sadly not as nice of a solution.
Do u think backing up to a local server will be possible with 802.11 ac. I know it will take a couple of years for 802.11 ac to be wide spread but id like to know.
Thanks for the GREAT answers, i really appreciate it.
 
Truth is, wireless is still in its infancy. It’s a revolution that will by all accounts dramatically improve over the next couple decades, perhaps eventually replacing wire completely. As complex as wireless is to implement for engineers, it’s still too simplistic in its design. The fact that everyone shares a single wireless radio is a perfect example. Yes, we’re expanding that now w/ more radios, more antennas, better algorithms, etc., but it will take time to dramatically increase speeds and efficiency. So I fully expect things will get better, but I’m realistic too. I wouldn’t place my bets on any wireless technology just around the corner. For one thing, we can’t all just dump our existing wireless devices because there’s a new kid on the block w/ a better wireless solution. Until wireless solutions become much more sophisticated, you just need to understand its limitations and plan your architecture accordingly.