On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:41:05 +0000 Bonno Bloksma <b.blok...@tio.nl> wrote:
> Hi, > > Responding to one part of your mail. The other parts have been covered in > other responses: > > > I was originally using one of the common 1/6/11 channels, and I switched to > > 3 since I saw a lot of other stations on those channels. > > This may have resulted in some improvement, but I'm still stuck locally as > > above. > > Be aware that by doing this you have created interference with even more wifi > networks then before. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels > If you select just channel 1, 6 or 11 you will have only interference with > other networks on that one channel. By selecting an "in between" channel 3 > you now have interference from both the channel 1 and the channel 6 networks. > Usually best is to see where the weakest networks are, on 1, 6 or 11 and > place your wifi there. > > In the 5GHz band there a lot more non overlapping channels and because of the > lower reach the chance of interference is lower as well. However, because of > that you might need more transmitters as well. I'm curious about this. I see that lots of sites claim this to be the correct approach to channel selection, apparently based largely on a Cisco articlef rom 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20150502223736/http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/technology/channel/deployment/guide/Channel.html OTOH, some argue that these results are mainly relevant to enterprise contexts, but less so to typical consumer environments: http://superuser.com/questions/443178/is-it-better-to-use-a-crowded-2-4ghz-wi-fi-channel-1-6-11-or-unused-3-4-8 Everyone explains the theory as you've given it, and I suppose it makes sense, but theory is no substitute for actual empirical evidence. I suppose that for best results, I would have to benchmark throughput across my links while on different channels. And even if I get better throughput on 3, I'd still have to consider whether it's worth it, in light of possible negative effects to my neighbors. Thanks, > Bonno Bloksma Celejar
