4 ms·

You could say the opposite I guess. I'm AMAZED at the number of people that bother hardwiring everything they can for no reason when they have no interference

You could say the opposite I guess. I'm AMAZED at the number of people that bother hardwiring everything they can for no reason when they have no interference issues. Why go to all the effort of hardwiring every laptop at every desk? If someone's using a laptop and moving around the office, why cable every desk when you can have gigabit wifi wherever you are?

maxyme 8y ago
Because gigabit wifi turns to 50mbps when the office gets big enough. There is only so much spectrum to use. Plus if you're already connecting monitors when you have your laptop at your desk the Ethernet adapter can be part of the dock.
- cbhl 8y ago
  When the office gets big enough, you reduce transmit power and add more access points so that there's enough spectrum to cover each desk. Aruba Networks equipment was used at my alma mater, and is also used by $dayjob. I've also had good experiences with employers using Cisco Meraki.
  - zamadatix 8y ago
    Even a single AP, single client, 160 MHz AC wave 2 2x2 connection in clear airspace has less max theoretical throughput than a gigabit hardware (1.7 vs 2). What makes a sane high density 5 GHz office design with 40 MHz channels (theoretical 400 mbit/s, real usually ~200-300) work is that office workers don't actually need that decent of a connection, just a guarantee voice jitter won't be >10 ms and that throughput will be "fast enough".
m_eiman 8y ago
Wired: PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.737 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.636 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.701 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.633 ms ... --- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.516/0.644/0.737/0.075 ms Wifi: PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=6.713 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.508 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.425 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.127 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=4.057 ms ... --- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics --- 22 packets transmitted, 22 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.429/3.769/16.722/4.054 ms Depending on what you're doing, this can make a HUGE difference.
- kraftman 8y ago
  I'm interested in what situations 3ms difference (16ms max) makes a difference in an average office environment?
  - m_eiman 8y ago
    It makes a huge difference when copying lots of files over SMB, for example.
    - mmt 8y ago
      I've never heard that, but I also don't use SMB heavily (especially over Wifi) to begin with. Is there a site you can point to that details the protocol's latency-sensitivity? If something like bulk file transfer is at issue, a ping test with sizes closer to the MTU (e.g. 1480 bytes) would be a closer simulation of those latencies.
      - m_eiman 8y ago
        It's just what I've experienced myself when copying a lot of files. E.g. "add 50k photos from network drive to Photos" or "perform initial Time Machine backup". Over cable I'd say it's at least twice as fast, haven't done any measurements though.
        mmt 8y ago
        That also raises the question of if it's implementation-dependent (especially if Apple optimizes AFP over everything else), rather than generally applicable to SMB, not that this would negate the validity of the example. > Over cable I'd say it's at least twice as fast That could be be because of the bandwidth difference, if wireless isn't 802.11ac (or if the cable isn't 100Mb/s). Is it also the case that copying a single file of comparable size doesn't show the same speedup?
- mmt 8y ago
  Although I'm skeptical (though see below), as the sibling comment is, that this small an increase in best case latency would make a difference in a typical office environment, I'm curious if it was (as close to) apples-to-apples as possible. That is, was it comparing 802.11ac to gigabit ethernet (or 54/108 Mb/s Wifi to 100Mb ethernet), and were the interfaces connected the same way (e.g. both via USB or both via PCIe/Thunderbolt)? Despite my skepticism, I've seen that, in the typical office setting, wireless latencies can vary much higher. It stands to reason that, no matter how well-engineered, it's still a shared medium, which means that congestion or interference caused by a neighbor can ruin someone's VoiP call during the time it's happening.

maxyme 8y ago

Because gigabit wifi turns to 50mbps when the office gets big enough. There is only so much spectrum to use. Plus if you're already connecting monitors when you have your laptop at your desk the Ethernet adapter can be part of the dock.

cbhl 8y ago
When the office gets big enough, you reduce transmit power and add more access points so that there's enough spectrum to cover each desk. Aruba Networks equipment was used at my alma mater, and is also used by $dayjob. I've also had good experiences with employers using Cisco Meraki.
- zamadatix 8y ago
  Even a single AP, single client, 160 MHz AC wave 2 2x2 connection in clear airspace has less max theoretical throughput than a gigabit hardware (1.7 vs 2). What makes a sane high density 5 GHz office design with 40 MHz channels (theoretical 400 mbit/s, real usually ~200-300) work is that office workers don't actually need that decent of a connection, just a guarantee voice jitter won't be >10 ms and that throughput will be "fast enough".

m_eiman 8y ago

Wired: PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.737 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.636 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.701 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.633 ms ... --- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.516/0.644/0.737/0.075 ms Wifi: PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=6.713 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.508 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.425 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.127 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=4.057 ms ... --- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics --- 22 packets transmitted, 22 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.429/3.769/16.722/4.054 ms Depending on what you're doing, this can make a HUGE difference.

kraftman 8y ago
I'm interested in what situations 3ms difference (16ms max) makes a difference in an average office environment?
- m_eiman 8y ago
  It makes a huge difference when copying lots of files over SMB, for example.
  - mmt 8y ago
    I've never heard that, but I also don't use SMB heavily (especially over Wifi) to begin with. Is there a site you can point to that details the protocol's latency-sensitivity? If something like bulk file transfer is at issue, a ping test with sizes closer to the MTU (e.g. 1480 bytes) would be a closer simulation of those latencies.
    - m_eiman 8y ago
      It's just what I've experienced myself when copying a lot of files. E.g. "add 50k photos from network drive to Photos" or "perform initial Time Machine backup". Over cable I'd say it's at least twice as fast, haven't done any measurements though.
      - mmt 8y ago
        That also raises the question of if it's implementation-dependent (especially if Apple optimizes AFP over everything else), rather than generally applicable to SMB, not that this would negate the validity of the example. > Over cable I'd say it's at least twice as fast That could be be because of the bandwidth difference, if wireless isn't 802.11ac (or if the cable isn't 100Mb/s). Is it also the case that copying a single file of comparable size doesn't show the same speedup?
mmt 8y ago
Although I'm skeptical (though see below), as the sibling comment is, that this small an increase in best case latency would make a difference in a typical office environment, I'm curious if it was (as close to) apples-to-apples as possible. That is, was it comparing 802.11ac to gigabit ethernet (or 54/108 Mb/s Wifi to 100Mb ethernet), and were the interfaces connected the same way (e.g. both via USB or both via PCIe/Thunderbolt)? Despite my skepticism, I've seen that, in the typical office setting, wireless latencies can vary much higher. It stands to reason that, no matter how well-engineered, it's still a shared medium, which means that congestion or interference caused by a neighbor can ruin someone's VoiP call during the time it's happening.