UK Mobile Phones (uk.telecom.mobile) Mobile telephone equipment and networks.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Old December 4th 18, 02:00 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 16
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

Piet wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
nospam wrote:
copying a 2 terabyte drive (which is small these days) via usb 2 takes
roughly a day (been there, done that). that would take a couple of days
over 100b-t network.


Ha! My laptop doesn't have a 2 TB disk. So, again, not an issue. :-p


Wonder how much time it would take to copy a 2 TB drive using a 3D-printer.


I'm sure nospam's printer does at least several pages per second.
After all, anything less than that "would be horribly crippling".

  #82   Report Post  
Old December 4th 18, 02:13 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 16
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 03/12/2018 16.09, nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're
copying files, they just do something else.


they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait
until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb
stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to
access the files on the server.


No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating
system.

And for backup there's this
thing called 'unattended backup'. I hope nospam doesn't mind that while
I'm typing this, my unattended backup is running. Can't wait - oops,
make that: don't have to wait - till it's finished.


missing the point entirely, as usual.

copying a 2 terabyte drive (which is small these days) via usb 2 takes
roughly a day (been there, done that). that would take a couple of days
over 100b-t network.


Ha! My laptop doesn't have a 2 TB disk. So, again, not an issue. :-p


But even if one has a 2TB drive, one normally doesn't have to backup
(note how nospam does yet another dodge-and-divert from making backup to
'copying') the whole drive. There are these concepts of differential and
incremental backup.

But even *if* one would make a full backup (of the in-use) part of the
drive, then why on earth would one need to 'wait' for that backup to
finish, before doing anything else!? Don't know about you, but my
computer(s), network, drives, etc. can perfectly well do their job
without me babysitting them or even being present.
  #83   Report Post  
Old December 4th 18, 02:16 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 16
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

A bit earlier, I wrote:
Piet wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
nospam wrote:
copying a 2 terabyte drive (which is small these days) via usb 2 takes
roughly a day (been there, done that). that would take a couple of days
over 100b-t network.

Ha! My laptop doesn't have a 2 TB disk. So, again, not an issue. :-p


Wonder how much time it would take to copy a 2 TB drive using a 3D-printer.


I'm sure nospam's printer does at least several pages per second.
After all, anything less than that "would be horribly crippling".


Oops! Didn't notice the '3D' bit. I had been thinking about what
nospam would be using for (normal) printing, so I assumed that you were
talking about that as well. Mea culpa.
  #84   Report Post  
Old December 4th 18, 02:40 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 16
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

NY wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote in message
...
On 03/12/2018 16.09, nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're
copying files, they just do something else.

they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait
until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb
stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to
access the files on the server.


No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating
system.


A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and
don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus
Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to
access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you
will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to
disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive.


The copying to an USB stick or external disk drive scenario was just
another of nospam's dodge-and-divert evasions, when he was unable to
give a specific answer to John's question

"What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more
than the 56M of g?"

But more to the point is my question (see above) *why* 'wait'? I don't
know about you, but if some operation takes some time - even minutes -
and I have/want something else to do, I just do it and hence don't
'wait'.

[BTW, Linux, MacOs and Windows all fall in the category "proper
multitasking and multiuser operating system", with Windows probably the
worst of the lot.]

Also, if you do a big file copy over a slow network connection (Ethernet or
wifi) you may restrict the throughput available to other network users -
unless the source and destination computers are on the same LAN segment,
separated from the rest of the LAN by a switch which keeps that traffic off
the rest of the LAN. I remember saturating the LAN in our office when I was
testing restoring PCs to a factory state using a Ghost image stored on a
server: Ghost originally ran flat-out, using as much bandwidth as the LAN
and LAN cards could manage.


I assume that was kind of a cold-boot over the LAN without much if any
(network) load balancing in bootloader(s)?

Yes, we also had such scenarios at my employer (some tiny 150K
employee IT company). But it helped we had been doing networking from
the (very) early 70s, so we knew a few things about network topology.
:-)

Anyway, such a scenario and network topology are less likely for the
home user on hir NATted LAN, i.e. the topic of this (non-)discussion.

I was instrumental in getting Norton to add a
"throttle" switch to Ghost so the server could set a maximum bandwidth for
serving PC disk images - obviously it then takes longer to transfer the
image, but you maintain some LAN bandwidth for other users.

After unwittingly "killing" the LAN, I very quickly got a switch and
connected the server and test PC to a "private" segment that could still
access the rest of the company LAN but which could talk between themselves
without slowing down the rest of the LAN.

In the same way, a big PC to PC file copy of a recorded TV programme has the
potential to affect other PCs which are streaming from one of those
computers or even from an unrelated computer on the LAN.


There QoS features of the 'router' come into play.
  #85   Report Post  
Old December 4th 18, 05:41 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 49
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 04/12/2018 15.40, Frank Slootweg wrote:
NY wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote in message
...
On 03/12/2018 16.09, nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're
copying files, they just do something else.

they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait
until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb
stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to
access the files on the server.

No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating
system.


A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and
don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus
Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to
access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you
will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to
disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive.


The copying to an USB stick or external disk drive scenario was just
another of nospam's dodge-and-divert evasions, when he was unable to
give a specific answer to John's question

"What uses do you have in mind that need more than 100M - or even more
than the 56M of g?"


Yep.

Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else
(assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another
computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper
switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it.

And if I'm imaging the laptop, or doing an offline full backup, I start
it then use another machine or go to sleep - this is home, not an office
where it pays to do things fast. Time is money, etc.


But more to the point is my question (see above) *why* 'wait'? I don't
know about you, but if some operation takes some time - even minutes -
and I have/want something else to do, I just do it and hence don't
'wait'.


Right.

[BTW, Linux, MacOs and Windows all fall in the category "proper
multitasking and multiuser operating system", with Windows probably the
worst of the lot.]


Right.

It is not common at homes for people to use a remote desktop on a
Windows machine, thus have two human users working at the same computer
- but Windows is of course multiuser and multitasking, different
processes can run from different users. Just have a look at the list of
processes any given time.

--
Cheers, Carlos.


  #86   Report Post  
Old December 5th 18, 10:27 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 34
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

"Carlos E.R." wrote in message
...
Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else
(assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another
computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper
switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it.


That depends on having all the right infrastructure. Ethernet is great for
connecting static computers, and I would never use wifi (especially for fast
PC-to-PC transfers that don't involve the internet) if I had the option of
Ethernet instead, but installing the cable is the big problem because you
need to drill holes through walls or door frames to take it from one room to
another.

No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is
already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing it,
and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less intrusive
than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down the side of
carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip that divides
one carpet from another.

The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and
sockets in every room, the better.

When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will
take over, but I've found it to be unreliable. I get spontaneous
disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be
disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens when
a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or
TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops may
claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely get a
wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's the raw
connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even before you
try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a problem, but I've had
it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi network - on *any* channel.
My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about 40 Mbps when talking to a
Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N (slower than theoretical max of
54 or 900 respectively), but then that link speed gradually degrades over an
hour or so until it ends up at about 5 Mbps.

Even for a newly-rebooted laptop which is next to the router and with no
other wifi on any channel, or any other device talking to the router, the
time to copy a 1 GB video file increases by an order of magnitude when using
wifi rather than Ethernet for a PC-to-PC transfer - and that's with one of
the two computers connected by Ethernet, so it's not a problem of the
traffic from PC A to the router "interfering" with traffic from the router
to PC B.

But for low-volume traffic where speed isn't critical, such as web browsing
and sending/receiving email, wifi is great for portable devices like phones
and tablets. Just don't rely on it for streaming video from "server" PC to a
Plex client etc.



But all of this is getting off the subject, which was the comparison of
mobile internet versus ADSL/VDSL. The subject line of the thread
misleadingly equates "wifi" with "xDSL", but then that's because it's
quoting an article which does the same :-)

  #87   Report Post  
Old December 5th 18, 02:44 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 49
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 05/12/2018 11.27, NY wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote in message
...
Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else
(assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another
computer. The network doesn't saturate because there are proper
switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it.


That depends on having all the right infrastructure. Ethernet is great
for connecting static computers, and I would never use wifi (especially
for fast PC-to-PC transfers that don't involve the internet) if I had
the option of Ethernet instead, but installing the cable is the big
problem because you need to drill holes through walls or door frames to
take it from one room to another.


Oh, I have those holes :-)
I did the cabling myself. Took some effort.


No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is
already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing
it, and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less
intrusive than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down
the side of carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip
that divides one carpet from another.


As I started as a HAM, I refused to install that *******y thing.


The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and
sockets in every room, the better.


Yes!

But it will not benefit older buildings, like mine.

Here (Spain) there is a cabling regulation that mandates that buildings
have the ducts and infrastructure to lay the cabling for at least 3
ISPs, but only to the door of each flat: from that point, it only
regulates a box inside. We have ducts to lay telephone wires to several
rooms (main room, kitchen and dorms), but nobody has changed the
regulation to add Ethernet cabling. So modern houses have the ducts, but
not the cables. Even installing the switch at the box can be a problem.


When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will
take over, but I've found it to be unreliable. I get spontaneous
disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be
disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens
when a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or
TeamViewer, then you are stuffed.


Yes.

My Googlechrome device one day said it could not connect to the WiFi
spot that was sitting half a metre from it. I had to redo the configuration.

Wire is so much reliable.

....

But all of this is getting off the subject, which was the comparison of
mobile internet versus ADSL/VDSL. The subject line of the thread
misleadingly equates "wifi" with "xDSL", but then that's because it's
quoting an article which does the same :-)


Well, in my case often "mobile is faster than wi-fi" ;-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #88   Report Post  
Old December 5th 18, 02:51 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 108
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Anyway, while the laptop is writing huge files to somewhere else
(assuming it is), I can do other things on the same laptop or in another
computer.


except that you or others can't do anything with those files until it's
done copying.

The network doesn't saturate because there are proper
switches, and the network is gigabit, so the laptop can not saturate it.


how old is this mystery laptop that it doesn't have gigabit?

computers, servers, etc made in the past decade (actually longer than
that) have gigabit, which means it *will* saturate the network.

that's why many nases have multiple gigabit ports or 10gig-e ports,
because gigabit is a significant bottleneck. 100bt would be a disaster.
  #89   Report Post  
Old December 5th 18, 02:51 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 108
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

In article , NY
wrote:

In the meantime, in the real world, people don't 'wait' when they're
copying files, they just do something else.

they might not sit and watch the progress bar, but they do have to wait
until the copy has completed to continue, whether it's removing the usb
stick, unmounting the external hard drive, or others being able to
access the files on the server.


No such problem. Just use a proper multitasking and multiuser operating
system.


A "proper multitasking and multiuser operating system" (which ones do and
don't fall into this category, I wonder - cue Linux versus MacOS versus
Windows snobbery?) will solve the third problem of "others being able to
access the files on the server", but it doesn't solve the problem that you
will still have to wait until the copy has completed before being able to
disconnect/unmount a USB stick or external disk drive.


even for servers, others can't access the files until everything has
completed copying.

Also, if you do a big file copy over a slow network connection (Ethernet or
wifi) you may restrict the throughput available to other network users -
unless the source and destination computers are on the same LAN segment,
separated from the rest of the LAN by a switch which keeps that traffic off
the rest of the LAN. I remember saturating the LAN in our office when I was
testing restoring PCs to a factory state using a Ghost image stored on a
server: Ghost originally ran flat-out, using as much bandwidth as the LAN
and LAN cards could manage. I was instrumental in getting Norton to add a
"throttle" switch to Ghost so the server could set a maximum bandwidth for
serving PC disk images - obviously it then takes longer to transfer the
image, but you maintain some LAN bandwidth for other users.


yep.

After unwittingly "killing" the LAN, I very quickly got a switch and
connected the server and test PC to a "private" segment that could still
access the rest of the company LAN but which could talk between themselves
without slowing down the rest of the LAN.

In the same way, a big PC to PC file copy of a recorded TV programme has the
potential to affect other PCs which are streaming from one of those
computers or even from an unrelated computer on the LAN.


yep.

someone gets it.
  #90   Report Post  
Old December 5th 18, 02:51 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 108
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

In article , NY
wrote:

No wonder people use Homeplug devices to make use of the wiring that is
already present in any building: the mains. It's an ugly way of doing it,
and it plays havoc with AM and SW radio reception, but it is less intrusive
than drilling holes everywhere and trying to hide cables down the side of
carpets or routing it through doorways under the metal strip that divides
one carpet from another.


very few use homeplug because wifi works great in nearly every
situation.

The sooner it becomes mandatory for all houses to have Cat 5 cabling and
sockets in every room, the better.


cat5 is obsolete. cat6 or better should be installed in renovations and
new construction to support 10gig.

When wifi actually performs as it is supposed to, then I suppose it will
take over, but I've found it to be unreliable.


wifi is *extremely* reliable.

I get spontaneous
disconnections requiring a wireless adaptor or access point to be
disabled/re-enabled, more often than I would like: and if that happens when
a PC is unattended and you are accessing it remotely by RealVNC or
TeamViewer, then you are stuffed. It's also slow. Routers and laptops may
claim to support the latest standard, but I've found that I rarely get a
wifi connection that is anywhere near the rated speed - and that's the raw
connection speed, as reported by Task Manager | Networking, even before you
try copying a big file over it. Interference may be a problem, but I've had
it happen even when InSSIDer shows no other wifi network - on *any* channel.
My Win 7 laptop initially connects at about 40 Mbps when talking to a
Wireless G router or about 80 to Wireless N (slower than theoretical max of
54 or 900 respectively), but then that link speed gradually degrades over an
hour or so until it ends up at about 5 Mbps.


something is *very* wrong with your equipment and/or setup.

Even for a newly-rebooted laptop which is next to the router and with no
other wifi on any channel, or any other device talking to the router, the
time to copy a 1 GB video file increases by an order of magnitude when using
wifi rather than Ethernet for a PC-to-PC transfer - and that's with one of
the two computers connected by Ethernet, so it's not a problem of the
traffic from PC A to the router "interfering" with traffic from the router
to PC B.


something is very wrong. do not assume that's how it is for everyone.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
N95-1 faster than N95 8GB Walker Moore UK Mobile Phones 16 January 14th 08 04:49 PM
entering data faster into a mobile device [email protected] UK Mobile Phones 0 December 29th 04 05:42 AM
Orange "work faster" Bradley Bogbrush UK Mobile Phones 1 September 29th 04 07:49 PM
Orange "work faster" David Marshall UK Mobile Phones 0 September 29th 04 04:57 PM
Faster/Cheaper mobile Opera browser access? Ruari Callow UK Mobile Phones 3 June 11th 04 03:35 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 Mobile Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about UK mobile phones"

 

Copyright © 2017