Test Setup

With several network benchmarks available, we needed a consistent means of comparing the throughput of our test components in real world settings. We chose IXIA's IxChariot 6.30 test suite along with their Performance Endpoints software due to their industry wide acceptance as analysis tools. We install the Performance Endpoints software on each client to execute the transactions sent by the test script from the console program. This allows us to capture the performance metrics for test throughput, transaction rates, and response times. We use IxChariot's standard throughput script for our testing with TCP and UDP enabled.

We test throughput and range capability with a two-node network setup consisting of a Intel Pentium D805 based HP m7500y desktop system and a 1.83GHz Core Duo based HP DV8000T notebook. Both systems utilize Windows XP Professional SP2 and have the typical home/office application software loads. Our setup consists of an endpoint pair with the HP notebook having the PC Card wireless network adapter installed and our HP desktop system with the tested router attached to the internal LAN port. The IxChariot console is installed on our notebook and the Performance Endpoint software is installed on our desktop system. The IxChariot console is used to create, run, and monitor tests run between the endpoint pairs. Unless otherwise noted, we test the router with the manufacturer's suggested wireless PC Card to ensure accurate test results for the supplier's products.

Our throughput test results are completed at distances of 10 feet, 40 feet, 80 feet, and 120 feet. Since we believe these products will typically be sold into the home or small office environment our tests are run with the typical appliances, cordless phones, and other devices in the 2.4GHz spectrum operating as they would in a real world environment. While this test scenario is not perfect nor void of RF interference it does place the product in a real world setting where obstructions, interference, and other items can and will affect the capability of the product. Our router remains in the same room attached to the desktop pc while our notebook with the wireless adapter is positioned at specific locations and distances from the router location.

We do not believe having the product located in an RF box, twenty feet underground, or in an empty warehouse void of internal walls is the proper environment to test products that will be located in a closet or on a desktop with clients attaching from various points within the building structure. Since our tests are performed in a true real world environment our results certainly will not match that of the manufacturer's claims or be comparable with other reviews. We firmly believe you will see better results in spacious open wall office settings, large open air buildings with a direct line of sight to the router, or facilities void of 2.4GHz traffic. That may be fine for some businesses, but home users are virtually guaranteed to be in less ideal environments.

Our 10 foot test is run with the router and wireless network adapter in the same room. The 40 foot test is generated in a separate room with two gypsum walls separating the wireless adapter from the router. Our 80 foot test is run with the wireless adapter on the second floor with four gypsum walls and the second level floor separating the two components. Our 120 foot test is generated in a separate building structure on a ground floor with one brick and two gypsum walls separating the wireless adapter from the router.

Click to enlarge

All tests are generated with the IxChariot throughput.scr test script. We run three iterations of each test at two different times during the day. We dismiss the low and high results from each test group and report the highest score from the remaining results. All results are reported in megabits per second (Mbps). Our results are based on both unencrypted and encrypted (WPA2-PSK) tests with the maximum, average, and minimum scores being reported for each distance. We will list the percentage differences between the unencrypted and encrypted results after each test section. Our notebook system will be referred to as the "Client" and our desktop system as the "Server" in our reports.

Linksys WRT-300N Client to Server Throughput
Comments Locked

22 Comments

View All Comments

  • shoRunner - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    As hinted at in the article the overall reliability of these draft-n routers is terrible. Having setup 60+ wireless networks in the past few months using many different kinds of routers including these draft-n routers, they have performed very badly some models requiring daily powercycling and constant firmware updates. If you are looking for a reliable fast wireless network the netgear 240 pre-n router is definately the better buy.
  • Myrandex - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    The Dlink DGL-1000 router has gigabit ethernet and is freaking amazing. Not to mention I enjoy the blue LEDs on the frong, and performance is nice.
    Jason
  • blckgrffn - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    If were are going to sustain 300 megabit throughput on our wireless devices, why isn't the wired backend gigabit?

    Seriously, early adopters of this stuff are also likely to have gigabit networking equipment, as that has been shipping in volume for the at least the last three years or so, and really became affordable as far as switches go last year. My $30 D-link gigabit switch has been working just fine...

    Nat
  • bobsmith1492 - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    On page 2, the feature chart states the three routers have 2.4 GHz bandwidth... I believe that is actually their operating frequency.
  • erwos - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    The spectrum nuking issue is a real concern to me. I live in an apartment building, so I'm already getting crowded by random wireless phones and microwaves all around me. I _shudder_ to think what will happen when some of these "draft 802.11n" devices become more common. I wish I could claim this kind of callousness was because of 802.11n, but I know it's not true - the original channel bonding schemes for 802.11b/g were infamous for this kind of thing.

    I'm trying my best to be a good citizen and turn that sort of stuff off, but I fear I may to have move to 802.11a, and the less-troubled 5ghz band, soon.

    -Erwos
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    I moved to 802.11a a long time ago, after more and more b/g APs started showing up. Been running great every since.

    I really have to wonder why the IEEE didn't use the 5ghz frequency for 11n. I know 11a has a shorter range than 11b/g, but I would think it would be easier to overcome that problem than it is to get past the major spectrum issues in the 2.4Ghz range.
  • yyrkoon - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    Well, atleast not here in the US I mean.
  • yyrkoon - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    2.4GHZ isnt regulated, 5.8GHZ may be, I'm not sure.
  • Lonyo - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    802.11n might be useful in the home eventually as broadband gets faster (30mbps+ connections), but for real high speed networking, it seems wired is still the only option.
    Can't say it's so suprising, but at least wireless is getting more useful in terms of matching increasing broadband speeds (although with existing MIMO, .11n isn't quite so useful yet, until it can exceed MIMO).
  • LoneWolf15 - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    Are you kidding? There are far more reasons for high-speed wireless in the home than just broadband. Streaming media servers (having all my movies, music, etc. on a server that can be streamed to an HTPC or appliance) are a prime example of a good use of high-speed WiFi, especially for those of us that don't wish to deal with rewiring CAT-5 in our houses.

    As for .11n, it isn't useful yet because there isn't a standard, and yet vendors are trying to capitalize on a need by releasing hastily-designed pre-standard product. It's not robust, and it requires proprietary hardware. When the IEEE finally figures this out (IMO, it should have been some time ago, they've had enough time, though dealing with bickering vendors is an issue) and issues a true standard, things should work out better, much like when V.90 finally was ratified.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now