![]() ![]() Let’s discuss a bit more about the interference aspect because people assume that if they have few neighbors that are far enough, they get no interference, which is kind of true, but doesn’t paint the entire picture. When you have little to no interference, when you are very close to the router with your client devices and if you actually need that bandwidth (for the quick transfer of large data packets). So when is the 160MHz channel bandwidth a good idea? In very few cases. Checking the interference on an EnGenius ECW230S AP. I have tested quite a few access points and wireless routers that do support 160MHz and the throughput was very similar to when the channel bandwidth was set to the 80MHz, while also a lot more unstable, as confirmed by long-term tests. At the same time, the wider the channel bandwidth, the better the throughput, so what are some of the trade-offs of choosing one channel width over the other? When to use the 160MHz channel width? Then, the 80MHz goes down to 6 and the 160MHz channel width is the most susceptible to interference, offering only two non-overlapping channels. The 40MHz channel bandwidth offers half that number, so there are only 12 non-overlapping channels and that’s because it relies on channel bonding to accomplish it which automatically cuts in the number of non-overlapping channels. That’s why the non-overlapping channels are the better choice in a crowded environment, but, as expected, the larger the channel bandwidth, the less the available non-overlapping channels. So, while the in the case of the co-channel interference, where the data arrives intact, just slower, in this case, the WiFi may simply become unusable. ![]() The second type of interference is the adjacent channel interference and, as the name suggests, it occurs when one channel ‘leaks’ into an adjacent channel (separated by let’s say, 5MHz), messing with the data transmission. This way, the APs are forced to share the channel between them, which means that the user will see a slower data transfer rate. The first is the co-channel interference which happens when there are multiple access points in the range of each other that are using the same channel. What does that mean you may ask? Well, there are two main types of interference, one worse than the other. This means that in case you set the channel bandwidth to 20MHz, you’ll get 24 non-overlapping channels that you can use which are free of interference. On the 2.4GHz band, there are 14 discrete channels, each 20MHz, but you only got four non-overlapping channels (1, 6, 11 and 14). With that being said, let’s talk about the 20MHz channel width. That’s why the manufacturers promise 5,000Mbps or even 11,000Mbps on the box, but this is just marketing nonsense. ![]() And it’s not really incorrect because the idea behind let’s say, the 80MHz channel bandwidth is that, based on the MCS (Modulation and Coding Scheme), it is theoretically possible to reach very high data rates. If you open the settings on your wireless router or access point, you should be able to find a section where you can change the channel and the channel width, with the exception of Netgear which decided to be weird and it offered various Modes, where you select the maximum supported link rate. Choose specific channels vs 20/40/80MHz?.Is the 40MHz the most suitable channel width for 5GHz?.So let’s explore some of the options that we have available and see which channel width is the most suitable for the 5GHz band depending on the conditions in the place that the wireless router or access point is positioned. TP-Link Archer AX21 on furniture.įor example, you may get away using 80MHz in a detached house where there is little chance of interference with your neighbors wireless access point or router, but what if we talk about a business-suitable network, where there are lots of APs and the risk of interference is exponentially higher? In that case using 40MHz and even 20MHz, depending on the number of access points can make a lot more sense than 80MHz (or 160MHz). And, while I won’t deny that it’s entirely possible to see a better throughput this way, these overhyped features and inflated numbers are rarely suitable in most cases, they’re only great in labs or when certain conditions are met. If we were to follow the values on the router boxes, the most suitable channel width for 5GHz would be 160MHz, with every other setting pushed to the maximum (including the transmit power). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |