3 ms·

Your LAN can handle it :) If the current setup can't, plugging the cameras and the NVR into a separate switch and none of that traffic will go near the rest of

Your LAN can handle it :) If the current setup can't, plugging the cameras and the NVR into a separate switch and none of that traffic will go near the rest of your LAN. Wifi on the other hand, there's really no (practical) segregation to speak of - the spectrum has limited bandwidth, it doesn't matter if it's a different SSID / wifi network, it'll affect your Wifi!

CrazyStat 3y ago
If you live in a sufficiently low density area (rural or suburban with large lots) you can put the two networks on different channels and they won’t meaningfully interfere with each order.
- kiallmacinnes 3y ago
  The chances are, if you live somewhere like that, somewhere that actually has a low noise floor for RF, then you likely also have a lot of space to cover with your wifi - and that means sacrificing range (via additional access points) for the second network.. For me: Wifi is great! But, whenever it's practical, I avoid it... Everything with it is a tradeoff!
numpad0 3y ago
I don't get why people don't get that part. What they mean by "Up to 1234 Mbps" on the box is "1234 Mbps shared". It's a giant wire occupying 1/4 mile around the AP, whereas, in wired Ethernet it's 1Gbps per link per direction. A GbE switch with wire-rate transfer guarantee can handle 1Gbps traffic between arbitrary combination of ports. All the camera traffic coming from port 9 to 16 going to NVR on port 7 have no impact to traffic between upstream router on port 26 and your PCs on port 3 and 5. That cannot happen with Wi-Fi because everything is inherently on the same shared port 1(sometimes literally); each 4Mbps incoming is 4Mbps of download speed taken from your laptop. Double if destination is also on Wi-Fi. This might be fine if there's just few cameras, but it's something to be aware of.

3 ms·

Your LAN can handle it :) If the current setup can't, plugging the cameras and the NVR into a separate switch and none of that traffic will go near the rest of

by kiallmacinnes 3y ago

CrazyStat 3y ago
If you live in a sufficiently low density area (rural or suburban with large lots) you can put the two networks on different channels and they won’t meaningfully interfere with each order.
- kiallmacinnes 3y ago
  The chances are, if you live somewhere like that, somewhere that actually has a low noise floor for RF, then you likely also have a lot of space to cover with your wifi - and that means sacrificing range (via additional access points) for the second network.. For me: Wifi is great! But, whenever it's practical, I avoid it... Everything with it is a tradeoff!
numpad0 3y ago
I don't get why people don't get that part. What they mean by "Up to 1234 Mbps" on the box is "1234 Mbps shared". It's a giant wire occupying 1/4 mile around the AP, whereas, in wired Ethernet it's 1Gbps per link per direction. A GbE switch with wire-rate transfer guarantee can handle 1Gbps traffic between arbitrary combination of ports. All the camera traffic coming from port 9 to 16 going to NVR on port 7 have no impact to traffic between upstream router on port 26 and your PCs on port 3 and 5. That cannot happen with Wi-Fi because everything is inherently on the same shared port 1(sometimes literally); each 4Mbps incoming is 4Mbps of download speed taken from your laptop. Double if destination is also on Wi-Fi. This might be fine if there's just few cameras, but it's something to be aware of.