the_great_intex
Title: This is what cool looks like
Posts:
30,622
Registered:
Jun 27, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 27,363
User ID: 692,453
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
Which is better for massive, constant data exchange with numerous hosts? Even if a wifi router was capable of producing faster speeds than FO, is it still better? Are there things to look out for concerning bandwidth? Who can enlighten me further? Say an 802.11ac (6.8Gb/s) vs a 1000BASE (1Gb/s) FO, who wins? Does the router or the cable in a situation where there's numerous high-definition content being streamed to 200+ devices simultaneously. Obvious the wifi is faster... but is it better for such a higher distribution?
-----signature-----
Only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity The only thing in life achieved without effort is failure Time Circuits... On. Flux Capacitor.... fluxxing.
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
If you're talking straight data transfer, fiber channel no question. IF you're talking about cost and convenience, WiFi. Things to watch out for: collisions. WiFi is noisy by nature and has to spend a lot of time sorting out the real signal from the echoes and the neighbor's signal. Each new device you add on to the LAN is going to increase those collisions and decrease your overall performance. The same is true of a fiber channel, but the only replies are coming from the machines downstream, not from every metallic surface in your home.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
Link to this post
|
Koneg
Title: Evil Genius
Posts:
31,388
Registered:
Dec 4, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,579
User ID: 530,943
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
the_great_intex posted: Which is better for massive, constant data exchange with numerous hosts?
That's a no-brainer. Fiber.
You're not limited to gigabit with fiber - you can go to multi-gigabit.
That said, the wireless option will be vastly cheaper.
-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun. | "Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
|
Link to this post
|
vn_nnanji
Title: Outpost Music Expert
Posts:
71,647
Registered:
Jun 30, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 62,027
User ID: 212,537
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
Ok, Lets talk networking. /Straightens tie "Hi! Nnanji, rush chairman. Damn glad to meet you!"
-----signature-----
|
Link to this post
|
Koneg
Title: Evil Genius
Posts:
31,388
Registered:
Dec 4, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,579
User ID: 530,943
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
http://www.xkcd.com/1032/
-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun. | "Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
|
Link to this post
|
the_great_intex
Title: This is what cool looks like
Posts:
30,622
Registered:
Jun 27, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 27,363
User ID: 692,453
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
ZigmundZag posted: If you're talking straight data transfer, fiber channel no question. IF you're talking about cost and convenience, WiFi. Things to watch out for: collisions. WiFi is noisy by nature and has to spend a lot of time sorting out the real signal from the echoes and the neighbor's signal. Each new device you add on to the LAN is going to increase those collisions and decrease your overall performance. The same is true of a fiber channel, but the only replies are coming from the machines downstream, not from every metallic surface in your home.
I see, that makes sense. That is also what I was thinking. But bandwidth wise their performance is the same with numerous hosts connected? Yup, I know I am not limited to a just a 1000BASE connection, that's not a problem. Speed isn't so much the concern but the overall performance is mine in the situation I am dealing with hundreds of hosts at one time with constant, heavy data streams. Interference would be a big one... so that does help make the case to use fiber vs wifi a lot. Latency wise, fiber is better? Or is wifi not bottle necked by slow processes?
-----signature-----
Only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity The only thing in life achieved without effort is failure Time Circuits... On. Flux Capacitor.... fluxxing.
|
Link to this post
|
Koneg
Title: Evil Genius
Posts:
31,388
Registered:
Dec 4, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,579
User ID: 530,943
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
the_great_intex posted: But bandwidth wise their performance is the same with numerous hosts connected?
Strictly bandwidth basis? Hard to say. My instinct, especially with the number of hosts you're hinting at, is to say the fiber connection will outperform any wireless - but I have nothing empirical to back that up. It's just a gut check.
-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun. | "Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
|
Link to this post
|
the_great_intex
Title: This is what cool looks like
Posts:
30,622
Registered:
Jun 27, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 27,363
User ID: 692,453
|
Subject:
Outpost: Let's talk networking. Fiber cables vs wifi
|
I think you're right as well, that's my gut feeling as well
-----signature-----
Only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity The only thing in life achieved without effort is failure Time Circuits... On. Flux Capacitor.... fluxxing.
|
Link to this post
|