PDA

View Full Version : Prepurchase Q: Server PC's network connection



RuefulR
2005-09-26, 04:36
I have a home wireless network already set up, but the only computer connected via ethernet cable to the router is my work computer, which is usually on a VPN and then doesn't recognize devices on the home network.

So, is it a really bad idea to use a wireless-connected computer as the server? I'm worried about wireless bandwidth.

If it is a bad idea but might work, would music storage on a NAS plugged into the router make things better or worse?

Thanks,
RR

Robin Bowes
2005-09-26, 05:03
RuefulR wrote:
> I have a home wireless network already set up, but the only computer
> connected via ethernet cable to the router is my work computer, which
> is usually on a VPN and then doesn't recognize devices on the home
> network.
>
> So, is it a really bad idea to use a wireless-connected computer as the
> server? I'm worried about wireless bandwidth.

Well, a wireless server would involve transferring the audio twice over
the wireless lan:

Server ----- WAP ----- SB

This may or may not be a problem depending on your wireless network
performance.

Is this an SB1 or SB2? The SB2 does 11g which has higher bandwidth
(54Mb/s vs. 11Mb/s for 11b - these are theoretical maximums!). Often, an
11b device (e.g. the SB1) connected to an 11g network will reduce the
performance of *all* devices to 11b levels.

> If it is a bad idea but might work, would music storage on a NAS
> plugged into the router make things better or worse?

A directly connected server (normal PC or NAS device) would reduce
wireless bandwidth requirements.

R.
--
http://robinbowes.com

If a man speaks in a forest,
and his wife's not there,
is he still wrong?

JulianL
2005-09-26, 05:15
What is your wireless? 802.11g (= theoretical 54Mbps total bandwidth)? How far will your SB2 be from your wireless router (i.e what is the actual signal strength/bandwidth you are likely to get to the SB2)? One way to find this is if you have a wireless laptop then sit it as the location where you plan to site your SB2 and look at what signal strength and bandwidth it reports. Failing this then how far will the SB2 be from the wireless router and how many walls/floors will be in the way?

Finally, how are you planning to encode your music collection (FLAC? MP3? If MP3 then what bitrate?).

In general I would say it would be very unlikely that you will have any problems but we really need answers to the questions above to give you better reassurance than general platitudes.

- Julian.

max.spicer
2005-09-26, 05:42
My server is wireless, so is my SB2. I have an 11G network and everything works just fine. I've _never_ experienced a drop out on my SB2.

I'm using a Linksys WAG354G with a Belkin wireless card in the server (don't know which one anymore). Everything is standard G - no 3rd party enhancements. My signal strength at the server is generally around 80%. My SB2 is actually next to the router, but I used wireless anyway as it meant one less cable to worry about. All my music is in FLAC format. If you've got a setup a bit like this one, you shouldn't need to worry.

Max


I have a home wireless network already set up, but the only computer connected via ethernet cable to the router is my work computer, which is usually on a VPN and then doesn't recognize devices on the home network.

So, is it a really bad idea to use a wireless-connected computer as the server? I'm worried about wireless bandwidth.

If it is a bad idea but might work, would music storage on a NAS plugged into the router make things better or worse?

Thanks,
RR

RuefulR
2005-09-26, 05:58
Thanks for replies everyone.


What is your wireless? 802.11g (= theoretical 54Mbps total bandwidth)? How far will your SB2 be from your wireless router (i.e what is the actual signal strength/bandwidth you are likely to get to the SB2)?
Finally, how are you planning to encode your music collection (FLAC? MP3? If MP3 then what bitrate?)....

- Julian.

The wireless network is 802.11g (D-Link). The PC that would be server is located upstairs while the router is downstairs, but the SB2 would be in the next room from the router. May be 7-8m away.

I just checked on the would-be server PC, and it's showing a "speed" (=bandwidth?) of 48.0 Mbps.

I'm using FLAC to encode my music.

RR

max.spicer
2005-09-26, 06:05
I'd say it will work perfectly. However, before you buy an SB2, make sure that there are no outstanding issues with your wireless network - it will make it much easier to work out what's what if you do have problems with the SB2.

Max


Thanks for replies everyone.



The wireless network is 802.11g (D-Link). The PC that would be server is located upstairs while the router is downstairs, but the SB2 would be in the next room from the router. May be 7-8m away.

I just checked on the would-be server PC, and it's showing a "speed" (=bandwidth?) of 48.0 Mbps.

I'm using FLAC to encode my music.

RR

RuefulR
2005-09-26, 08:01
I'll test out the network with the full rigour of which I am capable. That won't take long!

RR


I'd say it will work perfectly. However, before you buy an SB2, make sure that there are no outstanding issues with your wireless network - it will make it much easier to work out what's what if you do have problems with the SB2.

Max

RuefulR
2005-09-26, 08:18
RuefulR wrote:
> I have a home wireless network already set up, but the only computer
> connected via ethernet cable to the router is my work computer, which
> is usually on a VPN and then doesn't recognize devices on the home
> network.
>
> So, is it a really bad idea to use a wireless-connected computer as the
> server? I'm worried about wireless bandwidth.

Well, a wireless server would involve transferring the audio twice over
the wireless lan:

Server ----- WAP ----- SB

This may or may not be a problem depending on your wireless network
performance.

Is this an SB1 or SB2? The SB2 does 11g which has higher bandwidth
(54Mb/s vs. 11Mb/s for 11b - these are theoretical maximums!). Often, an
11b device (e.g. the SB1) connected to an 11g network will reduce the
performance of *all* devices to 11b levels.

> If it is a bad idea but might work, would music storage on a NAS
> plugged into the router make things better or worse?

A directly connected server (normal PC or NAS device) would reduce
wireless bandwidth requirements.

R.
--


Is that assuming that slimserver is actually running on the NAS? If I just use the NAS as purely a storage device, with slimserver running on the PC, then do I end up with something nasty like:

NAS-WAP-----PC-----WAP----SB2 ?

RR

Robin Bowes
2005-09-26, 08:44
RuefulR wrote:
> Is that assuming that slimserver is actually running on the NAS? If I
> just use the NAS as purely a storage device, with slimserver running on
> the PC, then do I end up with something nasty like:
>
> NAS-WAP-----PC-----WAP----SB2 ?

Ah yes, it would.

Assuming your network is like this:

NAS --- Wireless

Slimserver --- Wireless

Squeezebox --- Wireless

Then any audio streamed to the SB has to be transferred wirelessly three
times as three devices are talking to the WAP.

This may well work OK, but it increases your chances of having problems.

R.
--
http://robinbowes.com

If a man speaks in a forest,
and his wife's not there,
is he still wrong?

ceejay
2005-09-26, 10:12
Then any audio streamed to the SB has to be transferred wirelessly three
times as three devices are talking to the WAP.

This may well work OK, but it increases your chances of having problems.



Or is that four times?

(1) Data from NAS to WAP
(2) From WAP to Slimserver
(3) Slimserver to WAP
(4) WAP to SB2

Ceejay.

Robin Bowes
2005-09-26, 11:08
ceejay said the following on 26/09/2005 18:12:
> Robin Bowes Wrote:
>
>>
>>Then any audio streamed to the SB has to be transferred wirelessly
>>three
>>times as three devices are talking to the WAP.
>>
>>This may well work OK, but it increases your chances of having
>>problems.
>>
>>
>
>
> Or is that four times?
>
> (1) Data from NAS to WAP
> (2) From WAP to Slimserver
> (3) Slimserver to WAP
> (4) WAP to SB2

Something like that...

I got totally confused thinking about it! :)

R.

--
http://robinbowes.com

If a man speaks in a forest,
and his wife's not there,
is he still wrong?

Andrew L. Weekes
2005-09-30, 07:13
So, is it a really bad idea to use a wireless-connected computer as the server? I'm worried about wireless bandwidth.

I can offer some practical help here as I have a server that's presently on the end of an 802.11g wireless connection!

For the most part it works perfectly, but does depend upon network traffic - the single non-switched nature of the WAP means that any constant traffic (e.g. copying files to the server via a PC) overloads the bandwidth and the SB2's output suffers.

I'm about to run a cable through to the corner of the garage where my server lives, and upgrade to Gigabit, as I use it as a general file server, in addition to running slimserver.

It will work though and is easy to test before purchase - slimserver and softsqueeze will allow you to test the principle using solely a PC. You need to maintain a good connection to the server too - mine manages full 54 Mbps most of the time, with occasional drops to 48 and 36Mbps - the latter speeds have an effect on responsiveness.

I also feel it works worse with net-streamed files too - the server has to wirelessly connect to the ADSL router to start the stream, which then occupies wireless bandwidth before the server even starts streaming.

I'd recommend a hard-wired connection for all data sources, i.e. the server wants the storage and internet connections via hardware if you want reliable performance. If this is feasible I think wireless will work very well, except for times of heavy BW useage.

In answer to your question, yes i do think it's a bad idea, but that shouldn't stop you trying it to see if it's adequate for your demands - I did it as I needed to remote the server and wireless was available for expediency!

Andy.

Robin Bowes
2005-09-30, 07:25
Andrew L.Weekes wrote:
>>So, is it a really bad idea to use a wireless-connected computer as the
>>server? I'm worried about wireless bandwidth.
>
>
> I can offer some practical help here as I have a server that's
> presently on the end of an 802.11g wireless connection!
>
> For the most part it works perfectly, but does depend upon network
> traffic - the single non-switched nature of the WAP means that any
> constant traffic (e.g. copying files to the server via a PC) overloads
> the bandwidth and the SB2's output suffers.
>
> I'm about to run a cable through to the corner of the garage where my
> server lives, and upgrade to Gigabit, as I use it as a general file
> server, in addition to running slimserver.
>
> It will work though, is easy to test before purchase - slimserver and
> softsqueeze will allow you to test the principle using solely a PC, you
> need to maintain a good connection to the server too - mine manages full
> 54 Mbps most of the time, with occasional drops to 48 and 36Mbps - the
> latter speeds have an effect on responsiveness.
>
> I also feel it works worse with net-streamed files too - the server has
> to wirelessly connect to the ADSL router to start the stream, which then
> occupies wireless bandwidth before the server even starts streaming.
>
> I'd reccomend a hard-wired connection for all data sources, i.e. the
> server wants the storage and internet connections via hardware. If this
> is feasible I think wireless will work very well, except for times of
> heavy BW useage.

Andy,

I've got this [1] on order. I'll report back when I've got them and
checked it out.

[1]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00076PWIC/202-2481783-8975807?%5Fencoding=UTF8

R.

--
http://robinbowes.com

If a man speaks in a forest,
and his wife's not there,
is he still wrong?

Andrew L. Weekes
2005-09-30, 14:55
I'll be interested in your report on how well it works.

I finally ran the CAT5e in tonight, so will report back on the Sliserver system's performance now the connection is hardwired (100Mbps at present).

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
2005-10-01, 14:00
The hard-wired connection has had some use and I can certainly say it's more resilient than the wireless one.

Internet radio, in particular, is much better. I find this very noticeable on the Virgin Radio Ogg Vorbis stream, which donwgrades from a very good quality 160kbps to a diabolical 32kbps quite regularly on the wireless.

With the CAT5 in place it's been solid all day.

It's also a little more responsive on menus etc.

Andy.

RuefulR
2005-10-01, 16:01
...

It will work though and is easy to test before purchase - slimserver and softsqueeze will allow you to test the principle using solely a PC. You need to maintain a good connection to the server too - mine manages full 54 Mbps most of the time, with occasional drops to 48 and 36Mbps - the latter speeds have an effect on responsiveness.

...

In answer to your question, yes i do think it's a bad idea, but that shouldn't stop you trying it to see if it's adequate for your demands - I did it as I needed to remote the server and wireless was available for expediency!

Andy.

I did test and it seems to work. Not going to be easy to run a cable to the PC I'm using as a server, so I'll hope that the SB2 works as well as my guinea-pig laptop did.

Ta,
RR