Multiple Wireless vs Second Router

[c911darkwolf]

So my Desktop is connected to the router directly in our home. I understand that every wireless device you hook up cuts down on you wireless speed.


I have the WRT300n linksys the one with 3 attennas. I'm curious which of the following setups is more efficient.

Router 1
PC1 - Cable

pc2 - wireless
pc3 - wireless
pc4 - wireless
pc5 - wireless



vs.


Router1
pc1 - Cable

Ext Router2
pc2 - cable
pc3 - cable
pc4 - cable

pc5 - wireless


The second option would only have 2 devices using the wifi, but the 2nd router would be steaming 3 pc's woth of data.

 

[c911darkwolf]

No reply huh?


Say lets say this Router pushes out 210 (300 is given flawless conditions)

So 210 is our base for 1 device.

Layout # 1
Router # 1
PC 1 - Cable 90Mbps

PC 2 - Wireless - 26Mbps
PC 3 - Wireless - 26Mbps
PC 4 - Wireless - 26Mbps
PC 5 - Wireless - 26Mbps



Layout # 2

Router # 1
PC 1 - Cable 90Mbps

Router # 2 - 105Mbps
PC 2 - Cable
PC 3 - Cable
PC 4 - Cable


PC 5 - Wireless 105Mpbs

Just a curious since i have a second router collecting dust.

 

[Simo606]

If Router 1 is the router connected to the internet and you are going to connect router 2 to it, and all devices on router 1 and 2 are going to use the internet, router 1 is still going to have to process all that data so there's no real advantage.

Usually the routers are made to work efficiently for the number of ports they have and the recommended wireless hosts. In other words, your unlikely to see a 8 port router that can only process 4 ports before becoming overloaded.

I would try both configurations and see which works best for you.

Check the user manual or Google and see how many wireless hosts it can support at a time.

 

[c911darkwolf]

If Router 1 is the router connected to the internet and you are going to connect router 2 to it, and all devices on router 1 and 2 are going to use the internet, router 1 is still going to have to process all that data so there's no real advantage.

Usually the routers are made to work efficiently for the number of ports they have and the recommended wireless hosts. In other words, your unlikely to see a 8 port router that can only process 4 ports before becoming overloaded.

I would try both configurations and see which works best for you.

Check the user manual or Google and see how many wireless hosts it can support at a time.

Well here's the thing, in Scenario 1 - the Router 1 has to deal with 5 connections (4 wireless, 1 ethernet)
In scenario 2 Router 1 only has to deal with 3 connections total. Now knowing that wireless connection decrease at a rapid rate per the # of wireless connections we can presume something like the following


300Mbps router
1 Device - 300Mbps
2 Devices - 150Mbps
3 Devices - 75 Mbps
4 Devices - 33 Mbps
5 Devices - 16 Mbps

*note 300 is optimal, you can prob reduce the speed by 15% to account for network interference/ect... but were using optimal for this example)

This means if you had 5 wireless devices each would work at 16Mbps each ideally.

If you only had 3 connections they would be 75Mbps
PC1 - 75Mbps
PC2 - 75Mbps
Router 2 - 75Mpbs


now router 2 has 3 pc's connected to it. so that 75Mpbs is /3. 75/3 = 25Mbps on each device.


PC 1 - 350% faster connection
PC 2 - 350% faster connection
PC 3/4/5 on the 2nd router is getting over 50% faster


Even if you take away 10% for a bottle neck of the second router you still get faster end speeds then having that many wireless devices. Also you get a stronger signal due to 2 routers vs 1.


Now in my personal scenario
PC: 1 (Ethernet) uses internet a ton
PC: 2 Wireless uses internet medium
PC: 3 Wireless uses internet medium
PC: 4 & 5 rarely access anything outside of the LAN.

Because of 4 & 5's scenario i wasn't counting internet just LAN speeds.

Will prob give it a try this weekend, just wanted to get some logical feedback on it before i gave it a shot.