Wifi faster than ethernet with eero

[TheloniousBreskin]

I have two systems in my room. One is off of a wifi eero (WAP network) and the other is plugged directly into the eero. For some reason, download speeds, and speed tests are much lower on the wireless computer than on the wired one. what can I do to change this?

 

[InvalidError]

Try a different port on the router to rule out a bad port, a different cable to hopefully rule out a bad cable and a wired connection to your other PC to see if that may simply be a problem with your router itself instead of a problem with your other system's LAN port.

 

[gregjar]

Eero is good for Fast Roaming (802.11k &r) but isn't currently best in breed for backhaul between access points. Average backhaul throughput is around 30-60 Mbps in some reviews, versus a fairly consistent 200+ Mbps with Orbi, but Orbi's drawback is not supporting Fast Roaming. Any extender-based solution is really just repeating a fraction of the host router's original signal, given the significant attenuation that occurs to a WiFi signal over just a few feet. Couple that with the timing-related delays inherent to WiFi (like TDMA windows and carrier sensing) and auto-negotiating a lower modulation/coding index due to interference, and naturally, the throughput over WiFi will be less than over Ethernet (which doesn't need listen-before-talk provisions).

One solution for extended WiFi coverage without the additional delays inherent to repeaters/extenders would be to distribute a standalone router's signals to the rooms that need it. WiFi over coax is one method of improving coverage without losing Fast Roaming, as it uses a single router as the sole access point. Coaxifi (sold on eBay) seems to be the one option for WiFi over coax that supports every WiFi frequency band. This extends your WiFi network using a router with a detachable antenna port and a few unused cable outlets in your house.

Otherwise, you can NIC-team the PC with two network interface cards/adapters of the same chipset, and use them to overcome lower TCP windows, or just to load-balance from the same WiFi or Ethernet connection. But odds are that won't fully overcome the issue with much lower bandwidth on WiFI, as that's generally related to a low WiFi RSSI (signal strength) at the client (your PC) causing it to negotiate on a more loss-tolerant MCS index (maybe 16-QAM instead of 256-QAM, etc.). So again, the best thing you can do to improve WiFi throughput is generally to 1. not repeat the signal at all (keep it a single hop, on a single SSID) and 2. to bring the client closer to the original WiFi signal (by moving the client PC, or by using WiFi over coax).

 

[boosted1g]

In title you say wifi is faster then ethernet and in description you say wifi is slower than etherent, which is it??

If it is that wifi is slower than ethernet:
The most expensive top of the line router still has wireless that is slower than etherent. You might be thinking "but this router says speeds up to 1300 mbps and the ethernet is only 1000." Well first of all the ethernet is 1000mbps down PLUS 1000mbps up so it is in reality 2000 compared to the max theoretical 1300 mbps (and the vast majority of wifi devices only have an 866mbps chip in them anyways).
Secondly, when you have a single-radio repeater you have a man-in-middle device. So lets say the repeater can get 120 mbps from the router, well it has to split this in half so it only has 60 mbps of speed to now talk to ALL the devices connected to that repeater.


I hate these new generation of "whole home wifi devices" because they are taking something that is a per-case basis and trying to box it up as a catch-all kind of plug-it-in-and-it-works solution for the masses.

The reality is that if you are not using a hardwire connection from router to the secondary repeaters/access points then your performance is going to be crappy.