UKVoIPTalk.com

Rick Marks wrote:[color=blue]
> I discovered recently that my VoIP router (SPA-3102) and its
> predecessor (SPA-2100) can't route from WAN-LAN faster than about
> 7.5Mbps. The latter not helped by only having 10Mbps Ethernet
> interfaces.
>
> Looking at Tomshardware guide (search for the router charts) it
> seems that quite a lot other plain routers, wired and wireless,
> don't fare much better. By and large you seem to get what you pay
> for.
>
> So if you have high speed ISP service, say above 8Mbps, check out
> your hardware to see if it's a weak link in your chain.[/color]

For the last couple of years even budget range routers have had
100baseT connections, so it's not worth bothering your head about.
Some of the upmarket ones now have 1000baseT nowadays as well.

Just how old was your kit?

kraftee wrote:[color=blue]
> Rick Marks wrote:[color=green]
>> I discovered recently that my VoIP router (SPA-3102) and its
>> predecessor (SPA-2100) can't route from WAN-LAN faster than about
>> 7.5Mbps. The latter not helped by only having 10Mbps Ethernet
>> interfaces.
>>
>> Looking at Tomshardware guide (search for the router charts) it
>> seems that quite a lot other plain routers, wired and wireless,
>> don't fare much better. By and large you seem to get what you pay
>> for.
>>
>> So if you have high speed ISP service, say above 8Mbps, check out
>> your hardware to see if it's a weak link in your chain.[/color]
>
> For the last couple of years even budget range routers have had
> 100baseT connections, so it's not worth bothering your head about.
> Some of the upmarket ones now have 1000baseT nowadays as well.
>
> Just how old was your kit?
>
>[/color]
Just because a router has a 100baseT connection does not mean it can
process Wan to Lan at that speed.

The 3102 is still current, but is primarily a voip ATA.

However AIUI a draytek 2910 can only manage < 15 Mb/s.

I would be very careful about getting a router for a fast VM cable
connection, although some of the wireless ones from DLink and Netgear
look ok.

[url]http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/[/url]

Nick wrote:[color=blue]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> I would be very careful about getting a router for a fast VM cable
> connection, although some of the wireless ones from DLink and Netgear
> look ok.
>
> [url]http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/[/url][/color]

The lower end of this comparison table is /exceptionally/ out of date.
- essentially they're not retesting older kit, even if there have been
significant h/w or f/w upgrades.

For instance I have a DI-604 (you'll find it 3rd from the bottom) and it
gets significantly more throughput than the table suggests

Mark McIntyre wrote:[color=blue]
> Nick wrote:[color=green]
>>[/color]
>[color=green]
>> I would be very careful about getting a router for a fast VM cable
>> connection, although some of the wireless ones from DLink and Netgear
>> look ok.
>>
>> [url]http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/[/url][/color]
>
> The lower end of this comparison table is /exceptionally/ out of date.
> - essentially they're not retesting older kit, even if there have been
> significant h/w or f/w upgrades.
>
> For instance I have a DI-604 (you'll find it 3rd from the bottom) and it
> gets significantly more throughput than the table suggests[/color]

They do give version numbers they specifically state they tested the
DI-604 [V1.0]. A lot of routers change the hardware with different
versions - effectively making a totally different device.

They also do retest popular routers like the linksys wrt54.

I won't claim to know how accurate their figures actually are but many
of the manufactures adverts imply that the Wan to Lan transfer rate is
100 Mbs which really annoys me. It is rare that a manufacturer quotes
figures for Wan to Lan throughput with the firewall on. I think they
should be had up for false advertising.

We both know that the first thing VM support groups advise customers
complaining of a slow connection to do is to remove the router so
clearly it is a common problem.


If you know of any other source for this kind of info I would be
grateful to hear about it. I liked smallnetbuilder because it was the
only site of its type that I could find.

Mark McIntyre wrote:[color=blue]
> Nick wrote:[color=green]
>>[/color]
>[color=green]
>> I would be very careful about getting a router for a fast VM cable
>> connection, although some of the wireless ones from DLink and Netgear
>> look ok.
>>
>> [url]http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_chart/Itemid,189/[/url][/color]
>
> The lower end of this comparison table is /exceptionally/ out of date.
> - essentially they're not retesting older kit, even if there have been
> significant h/w or f/w upgrades.
>
> For instance I have a DI-604 (you'll find it 3rd from the bottom) and it
> gets significantly more throughput than the table suggests[/color]

Ditto here, I have had it do over 4Mbps, tho the line isn't really up to
that.


These days it goes straight into a 100Mbps switch, and that actually has
improved its throughput marginally I think. Probably because all te
local traffic doesn't clutter up its 10Mbps interfaces

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:22:57 +0000, Nick wrote:
[color=blue]
> If you know of any other source for this kind of info I would be
> grateful to hear about it. I liked smallnetbuilder because it was the
> only site of its type that I could find.[/color]

If you've got two computers, you can test it yourself with a tool like
iperf: [url]http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/[/url]

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
16:51:24 up 6 days, 42 min, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.12, 0.03
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

alexd wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:22:57 +0000, Nick wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If you know of any other source for this kind of info I would be
>> grateful to hear about it. I liked smallnetbuilder because it was the
>> only site of its type that I could find.[/color]
>
> If you've got two computers, you can test it yourself with a tool like
> iperf: [url]http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/[/url][/color]

Just to clarify, to do this you need to connect one computer to the WAN
port and one to the LAN port.

alexd wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:22:57 +0000, Nick wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If you know of any other source for this kind of info I would be
>> grateful to hear about it. I liked smallnetbuilder because it was the
>> only site of its type that I could find.[/color]
>
> If you've got two computers, you can test it yourself with a tool like
> iperf: [url]http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/[/url]
>[/color]

I was actually hoping to use the site to advise me what to buy, not test
what I already had.

However When I get a screen for my Ubunto box I will give it a go.
Trying to work out how to import a c++ project into visual studio sounds
a bit too much like hard work for idle curiosity.

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:17:56 +0000, Nick wrote:
[color=blue]
> However When I get a screen for my Ubunto box I will give it a go.[/color]

You could SSH into your Ubuntu to run it.
[color=blue]
> Trying to work out how to import a c++ project into visual studio sounds
> a bit too much like hard work for idle curiosity.[/color]

If idle curiosity is your game, then you'd be better off downloading the
Windows binary than building it from source.

[url]http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/iperf-1.7.0-win32.exe[/url]

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
13:55:01 up 6 days, 21:46, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data