Wifi vs Ethernet

[Sjekke 85]

Just out of curiosity, the HC3 has a 100 mbit connection, but you can also connect via WiFi, but I can't find the specifications (1x1, 2x2, ...) anywhere for the WiFi except that it speaks AC protocol.  
 

So: Is the WiFi faster or slower than the Ethernet port?

[ppeterr 203]

copy from a google result. Because i am lazy.

 

Quote

In summary, with Wi-Fi, there's a bit more of a delay when signals travel back and forth between a Wi-Fi device and your wireless router. With a wired Ethernet connection, there's much less latency.

 

In practice, you will not notice a big difference, but yes. Wifi is slower.

[Sjekke 85]

Wifi has more latency, but therefore the speed is not slower compared to a 100 mbit connection.  I'm assuming the HC3 on 5Ghz has at least 2x2 MIMO (867 Mbps).

 

2 hours ago, ppeterr said:

In practice, you will not notice a big difference, but yes. Wifi is slower.

Did you test it?

[ppeterr 203]

7 minutes ago, Sjekke said:

Wifi has more latency, but therefore the speed is not slower compared to a 100 mbit connection.  I'm assuming the HC3 on 5Ghz has at least 2x2 MIMO (867 Mbps).

 

Did you test it?

 

No i did not test it, but do you think it needs more bandwith then 100mbit? I dont think so.

 

So within the 100mbit, then i think better latency is what you need.

[petergebruers 1,264]

16 hours ago, Sjekke said:

So: Is the WiFi faster or slower than the Ethernet port?

 

Would it matter?

 

You plan to use a lot of non-Z-Wave devices?

 

you plan to use the app or browser interface "a lot"?

 

Even then...

 

Client: MacBook Pro

WiFi: 10 year old COMPAL access point, dual band, supports AC

 

Current connection bandwidth: 868 MHz  edit 866 Mbit, 868 MHz is the Z-Wave freq in the EU ?

 

So "raw" speed from mac to network certainly beats 100 Mbit ethernet

 

Latency... This is to a HC3 lite, connected through WiFi because it lacks an ethernet port... Less memory, CPU and bandwidth than a HC3

 

peter@MacBook-Pro-M1-van-Peter ~ % ping 192.168.0.115 -D -s 1000

PING 192.168.0.115 (192.168.0.115): 1000 data bytes

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=6.327 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=8.625 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=7.939 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=8.460 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=6.241 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=6.395 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=6.577 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.115: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=6.153 ms

 

This is my HC3, connected to a switch over ethernet (my macbook still on WiFi)

 

peter@MacBook-Pro-M1-van-Peter ~ % ping 192.168.0.55 -D -s 1000

PING 192.168.0.55 (192.168.0.55): 1000 data bytes

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=5.852 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=4.479 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=6.397 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=6.083 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=3.549 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=6.755 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.657 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=4.651 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.55: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=3.350 ms

 

for comparison, my mac to a Shelly WiFi light bulb (ESP8266)

 

peter@MacBook-Pro-M1-van-Peter ~ % ping shellybulb-3CC56C.local -D -s 1000

PING shellybulb-3cc56c.local (192.168.0.98): 1000 data bytes

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.98: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=58.868 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.98: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=8.396 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.98: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=7.646 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.98: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=9.602 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.98: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=5.086 ms

1008 bytes from 192.168.0.98: icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=5.496 ms

 

13 hours ago, Sjekke said:

Wifi has more latency, but therefore the speed is not slower compared to a 100 mbit connection.  I'm assuming the HC3 on 5Ghz has at least 2x2 MIMO (867 Mbps).

The module on my preproduction unit is a 6222B-SRB Wi-Fi Module

 

Please login or register to see this link.

 

RTL8822BS
5G Wi-Fi
SDIO3.0/Uart
2T2R+BT ANT
BT4.2/ BLE4.2
13.0 X 15.0mm 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by petergebruers

[ppeterr 203]

This from a VM running on a NAS connected to the same switch with a HC3.

 

 

Please login or register to see this code.

 

Over the wifi 6 network, it is still < 3ms. But well, i like it below 1ms

 

 

[petergebruers 1,264]

Thanks guys. Now we have some ballpark figures of speed/latency. Something else crossed my mind: what about ZigBee interference? I know from theory and practice, they do interfere, and distance between antennae is a factor. I am not sure about the practical impact of enabling WiFi on HC3. I might be able to test a bit. I do have my ZigBee stick on a 50 cm extension cord on my other HA system, but that is to avoid interference with USB3 (hard drive). It has a significant intact on my system

[ppeterr 203]

A few things have been updated in terms of network here in the house last year. Wifi, access points, routers. name it. Pretty fancy semi professional stuff. It functions very well, but definitely requires more attention in the config. The result is certain that things interfere with each other. The WiFi 6 network is so strong that the wireless sub and rears sometimes fail while at a completely different frequency. Also, but I can't prove that, a zwave sensor in a certain corner of the house, where there is a lot of tech stuff, has connection problems. I moved it and hung it high in a corner. And it functioned. So yes, at the end of the line. Nice all that wireless, but things will interfere with each other.

 

So certainly one of the main reasons to --> UTP!

Edited April 2, 2022 by ppeterr

[Sankotronic 2,118]

Since no one here mentioned WiFi and Zigbee channels settings, but only position of antenna this links might be interesting for users that have multiple WiFi AP and Zigbee controllers:

 

Please login or register to see this link.

Please login or register to see this link.

Please login or register to see this link.

  (PDF with more info)

 

It definitely helped me to adjust WiFi and Zigbee channels to work better and to minimize interference.

For those who have plenty Sonos speakers: As you know Sonos uses its own WiFi network to sync and it is recommended to check what channel it uses.

 

 

 

 

[ppeterr 203]

3 hours ago, Sankotronic said:

Since no one here mentioned WiFi and Zigbee channels settings, but only position of antenna this links might be interesting for users that have multiple WiFi AP and Zigbee controllers:

 

Please login or register to see this link.

Please login or register to see this link.

Please login or register to see this link.

  (PDF with more info)

 

It definitely helped me to adjust WiFi and Zigbee channels to work better and to minimize interference.

For those who have plenty Sonos speakers: As you know Sonos uses its own WiFi network to sync and it is recommended to check what channel it uses.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the links, nice to read about it. 

 

As soon as we have zigbee, i will test it

 

But i am not sure if it would work out very well. In my nuclear wifi bunker called "house", where bread on the table

gets toasted in free air, cose of the wifi network. It might not function that well

 

 

 

 

[Sankotronic 2,118]

My modest setup:

 

62 to 72 WiFi+LAN devices connected to Ubiquiti Amplifi HD + 1 x WiFi Mesh point + GSM Huawei WiFi router, 6 Sonos speakers, 1 x HUE Zigbee with 35 bulbs and stripes.

 

Amplifi router 2.4GHz channel 1

Amplifi router to meshpoint backbone on 5GHz (can't see the channel)

4 x TP-LINK Powerline LAN adapters (with speed up to 120Mbps (max 500Mbps) are bottlenecks in my Gigabit network, but have to use them for now)

Huawei 2.4GHz channel 3 (placed on the other side of the house far from Amplifi router, used by kids for streaming and gaming with speed up to 100Mbps)

Sonos 2.4GHz channel 6

HUE bridge Zigbee channel 25 (placed 2 meters away from Amplify)

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

Before changing channels I had problems with Zigbee and dead bulbs. Also Sonos hiccuped occasionally. With above setup all problems are gone, also now I have few more Zigbee channels free for future upgrades. I just hope that Fibaro will allow changing Zigbee channels on HC3.

 

I have also Ubiquiti Alien router with WiFi-6, but for some reason it didn't bring any improvements to the speed or stability of the WiFi connections in comparison to Amplifi HD with one mesh point. While Amplifi HD keeps good connections to all 40-45 WiFi devices, Alien after some time starts loosing WiFi connection to some of devices probably during IP lease renewal. Still have to play with this one.

 

Of course all my WiFi and LAN devices are on fixed IP address, some by their own settings, but most of them have MAC to IP address binding setup in router, even our mobile phones. My ISP provided WiFi router was unable to service my ever growing network so now it is setup in bridge mode with WiFi turned off and serving only IP TV

 

[petrkl12 206]

7 hours ago, Sankotronic said:

 

4 x TP-LINK Powerline LAN adapters (with speed up to 120Mbps (max 500Mbps) are bottlenecks in my Gigabit network, but have to use them for now)

Just tip:

I had also TP-link Powerline LAN that was replaced by Develo Magic 2 and now speed is 1319/932 Mbit/s

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[ppeterr 203]

That's a nice setup, although I wouldn't choose Huawei or TP-link myself. I've narrowed everything down to Ubiquiti here.

UDMP with a poe switch via SFP. Then cat 6a pulled through the whole house. Long range access points, and wifi 6 in walls in every room. This results in that the UDMP is actually the bottleneck. The backplate of this router is 1 Gbps, so using DPI or other traffic management tools on this router results in slower speeds then my ISP can deliver on the fiber line. But the general performance over the UTP network, and the WiFi network is good. It's been running for a year now, but still looking around for an upgrade

[Sankotronic 2,118]

@petrkl12 @ppeterr

 

Thanks for the suggestions. TP-LINK powerline adapters where the best offered here few years ago when I buy them. It is definitely time for upgrade. I have to use powerline adapters because I buy house when it was finished and ready to move in. Previous owner didn't pay to much attention to modern technologies and definitely no knowledge about home automation. Even basic electrical installation was done cheap

 

I know I have plenty room for upgrades to my home network, just not ready to start demolishing walls to pull all necessary cables.

 

[petrkl12 206]

I have built everything on UniFi (partly 10Gbit) a few years ago and I'm satisfy with that

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[ppeterr 203]

@petrkl12

 

Wauw. You gotta lotta switches, and a lot of ports. Where do you use that 120! ports for?

 

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by ppeterr

[SmartHomeEddy 827]

With that many Unifi switches, you don't need heating your house  

 

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by SmartHomeEddy

[ppeterr 203]

2 minutes ago, SmartHomeEddy said:

With that much Unifi switches, you don't need heating your house  

 

I took a heat map picture of my electrical cabinet, before it was redone. And yes this is already a nice temp. 

 

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[petrkl12 206]

i have a lot of devices at home  and yes el.consumption is a bit higher ?

[Sjekke 85]

On 4/3/2022 at 4:05 PM, SmartHomeEddy said:

With that many Unifi switches, you don't need heating your house  

 

 

No only solar panels … ?