Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:32:55 -0800 From: Christopher Kelley <bsd@kelleycows.com> To: "Loren M. Lang" <lorenl@alzatex.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does 802.11b use a lot of resources? Message-ID: <4225EAB7.3020205@kelleycows.com> In-Reply-To: <20050302101715.GE30896@alzatex.com> References: <421EB26B.5050608@kelleycows.com> <200503020126.46489.bob89@bobj.org> <20050302101715.GE30896@alzatex.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Loren M. Lang wrote: >On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:26:45AM -0500, Bob Johnson wrote: > > >>On Friday 25 February 2005 12:06 am, Christopher Kelley wrote: >> >> >>>Have I tried too hard to squeeze usability out of an old computer? >>> >>>I have a Pentium-166 that has been a faithful router & firewall (FreeBSD >>>5.3 and pf) for a couple years now. It has no trouble with the 3 to 4 >>>Mbps I get from my broadband connection, at least not with ethernet. >>> >>>I wanted wireless, so I could use my laptop around the house. I >>>dutifully read the section in the manual about setting up FreeBSD as an >>>access point. I'm using a Netgear MA311 802.11b card (Prism 2.5 >>>chipset). And it does work, except it's very slow. Now I know that I >>>can only expect about 50% of the rated speed with wireless, but I >>>figured even if I got only 4Mbps, I'd be fine. But I get less than >>>1Mbps. I've updated the firmware, added a signal booster and hi-gain >>>antenna, and I have "excellent" signal strength throughout my house. >>> >>>So my question is, is there more overhead with wireless than with >>>ethernet? TOP doesn't seem to show that I'm taxing it too hard, idle >>>never goes below about 70% with polling enabled (Hz=1000), and never >>>below about 80% with polling disabled. Am I expecting too much out of >>>an old Pentium-166? >>> >>> >>> >>My experience is that: >> >>1) 50% throughput is probably the best you should expect. I generally plan on >>3-4 Mbps for an 11 Mbps 802.11b card. >> >>2) Using 128-bit encryption (WEP) will significantly slow down some (many?) >>cards. The WEP processing is done on the card (I think), and they simply >>don't have hefty processors. If you use 128-bit WEP, try 64-bit WEP and see >>if that speeds things up. 64 bit WEP is adequate to keep out casual >>snoopers, and 128 bit is not adequate to keep out a serious attacker, so the >>difference in security may not be as important as some believe. 64-bit WEP >>is also known as 40-bit, and similarly for 128-bit WEP. >> >> > >Actually, what I recommend for home you, if you have the time, is IPSEC. >Much more secure than WEP and it's all done on the main cpu so it should >slow the wifi down as much. There's a good article on freebsddiary.org >I believe. > > > I found the article on freebsddiary, and I admit I only skimmed it, but I have a mix of FreeBSD and Windows (XP) on my wireless network, and for now I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. Christopherhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4225EAB7.3020205>