network bandwidth requirements

  • Thread starter Thread starter hass chapman
  • Start date Start date
H

hass chapman

can anyone tell me the minimum bandwidth requirements to
run a win2k / xp network over wlan links? we are
currently running over 256-512kbs links and even opening
explorer takes a long time (my documents is on other side
of link on server).

Thx

Hass
 
hass said:
can anyone tell me the minimum bandwidth requirements to
run a win2k / xp network over wlan links? we are
currently running over 256-512kbs links and even opening
explorer takes a long time (my documents is on other side
of link on server).

Thx

Hass
Click to expand...

The min.BW needed to make a Windows net work is certainly <1Mb/s,
and may be <1Kb/s. {Lots of early PC networking was done using
~10Kb/s modems, and pre-PC networking began at ~100 b/s.}

The min.BW needed to make a Windows net work pleasantly is
probably >1Gb/s; maybe >1Tb/s; possibly >1Pb/s. ;-) ;-) ;-)

Seriously, you should consider some net specs other than just BW
if you want to create a productive work environment; latency, for
starters. E.g., the min.BW WLAN spec today is 11 Mb/s, but the
latency through a WAP bridging LAN and WLAN net segments, coupled
with the protocol overhead of the WLAN, means that the max. STR
(Sustained Transfer Rate) is likely to be much better between a
pair of 10 Mb/s nodes than between a 10 Mb/s LAN node and a
11 Mb/s WLAN node.
 
Hi Hass,

I don't understood your concerns clearly.

You only access the documents in the other side or you try to terminal the
computer in the other side?

Would you please clarify the issue clearly and I will help you to solve the
problem.

Thanks for using Microsoft News Group!

Sincerely,

Steven Liu

Microsoft Online Partner Support

MCSE 2000

Get Secure! ¨C www.microsoft.com/security

This posting is provided ¡°as is¡± with no warranties and confers no rights.
--------------------
| Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
| From: "hass chapman" <[email protected]>
| Sender: "hass chapman" <[email protected]>
| Subject: network bandwidth requirements
| Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:47:14 -0700
| Lines: 9
| Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain;
| charset="iso-8859-1"
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
| Thread-Index: AcNKnO0UEAjAizOqRmiIoiXcniFKnA==
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
| Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web:119045
| NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA12 10.40.1.164
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web
|
| can anyone tell me the minimum bandwidth requirements to
| run a win2k / xp network over wlan links? we are
| currently running over 256-512kbs links and even opening
| explorer takes a long time (my documents is on other side
| of link on server).
|
| Thx
|
| Hass
|
 
I am wondering if our current WAN links with 256 kbps
(max 512kbps) are enough to support a windows network or
if this is the reason we are haveing very slow
performance (in Explorer when looking at my documents on
server for example).


/hass
 
hass said:
I am wondering if our current WAN links with 256 kbps
(max 512kbps) are enough to support a windows network or
if this is the reason we are haveing very slow
performance (in Explorer when looking at my documents on
server for example).


/hass




try to terminal the


help you to solve the


and confers no rights.
Click to expand...

There are many possible reasons for low network performance;
it is a mistake to focus only on bandwidth. Some WAN links
may have terrific bandwidth but poor latency; some WANs may
have terrific peak bandwidth but poor prime-time bandwidth
due to congestion; some WANs may have terrific bandwidth
specs but poor delivered bandwidth due to high error rates or
due to improper network params (MTU, RWIN) or due to slow
recovery from segmentation or out-of-order delivery or etc.

Aside from network issues, you may also have poor response times
due to DNS misconfiguration or server file organization.

So, the answer to your question is: maybe.
 
Back
Top