Intel crap 2.5G LAN

[Pictus]

UPDATE:
Seems like the bug is fixed, go to the motherboard site, download the LAN
firmware update and the new driver.
1 - Update the firmware
2 - Install the new driver


Intel crap 2.5G LAN
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments ... ed_models/

[chk071]

Real men use wi-fi anyway.

[teilo]

Real men use wi-fi anyway.

The only reason 2.5G exists is because of Wifi. You need 2.5G to feed 802.11ac Wave 2 APs, which max out at 2.34Gb.

Of course, that's theoretical max, so you still benefit if you only feed it 1G.

[BertKoor]

Looks like a pissing contest to me

[cnt]

Real men use wi-fi anyway.

The only reason 2.5G exists is because of Wifi. You need 2.5G to feed 802.11ac Wave 2 APs, which max out at 2.34Gb.

Of course, that's theoretical max, so you still benefit if you only feed it 1G.

You dont need 2.5 Gig for 802.11ac wave 2.
Thats just ridicolous. I know some accesspoint models have it, but no one uses it tbh. Most of the times you dont even need 1 Gig. Since your clients are not cabable of more than maybe 2x2 or 3x3 (Macbook) spatial streams. You need a lot of clients that are also wave 2 capable PLUS you need to be somewhere where you have no airports or neighbours, to even get to use 1 Gig - and by then the air spectrum is already filled (good luck using 160 mhz wide channel).
You won't get 1 gig or 2.5 gig with ONE client, period.

With wifi6, 802.11ax you can go over 1 gig but it wont happen until 80% of your clients is wifi6 capable and it will not happen with ONE wifi6 client, you have to have a lot of clients... so maybe in 3 years 2.5 gig for pure wifi6 networks is good. But also because most new APs have dual 5 ghz + 2.4 ghz. (And this is only nice when you have like a lot of clients)

Btw, data rates are not actual "speed". Speed is about half the specified data rate. Rest is overhead etc.
Wifi is half duplex by nature so it will never be better than cable, though wifi6 is better for high user density areas.

I wouldnt get 2.5 or 5 gig ports anyway on my switches. Better get a dedicated 10 gbit pcie card if you have a DAW and a backup server or fileserver.

[teilo]

Real men use wi-fi anyway.

The only reason 2.5G exists is because of Wifi. You need 2.5G to feed 802.11ac Wave 2 APs, which max out at 2.34Gb.

Of course, that's theoretical max, so you still benefit if you only feed it 1G.

You dont need 2.5 Gig for 802.11ac wave 2.
Thats just ridicolous. I know some accesspoint models have it, but no one uses it tbh. Most of the times you dont even need 1 Gig. Since your clients are not cabable of more than maybe 2x2 or 3x3 (Macbook) spatial streams. You need a lot of clients that are also wave 2 capable PLUS you need to be somewhere where you have no airports or neighbours, to even get to use 1 Gig - and by then the air spectrum is already filled (good luck using 160 mhz wide channel).
You won't get 1 gig or 2.5 gig with ONE client, period.

With wifi6, 802.11ax you can go over 1 gig but it wont happen until 80% of your clients is wifi6 capable and it will not happen with ONE wifi6 client, you have to have a lot of clients... so maybe in 3 years 2.5 gig for pure wifi6 networks is good. But also because most new APs have dual 5 ghz + 2.4 ghz. (And this is only nice when you have like a lot of clients)

Btw, data rates are not actual "speed". Speed is about half the specified data rate. Rest is overhead etc.
Wifi is half duplex by nature so it will never be better than cable, though wifi6 is better for high user density areas.

I wouldnt get 2.5 or 5 gig ports anyway on my switches. Better get a dedicated 10 gbit pcie card if you have a DAW and a backup server or fileserver.

All I said was that wave 2 wifi is the only reason 2.5G exists, and that to exceed 1G of bandwith, you need to run 2.5G to your APs. Both statements are true and neither is ridiculous.

[jdnz]

I wouldnt get 2.5 or 5 gig ports anyway on my switches. Better get a dedicated 10 gbit pcie card if you have a DAW and a backup server or fileserver.

multigig (2.5/5/10g) uplinks on switches is a great idea - gives people options if their uplinks are only UTP and range is an issue at 10g. I'd rather have an option to drop to 5g or 2.5g rather than throttle the uplink all the way to 1g!!!

ditto on NASs - I'd much rather have multigig ethernet ports than have to muck about with link aggregtion

'pure' 10g is nice - but not always achievable (decent range means fibre to the desktop - owww, plus switches with all sfp+ ports) or needed (takes a serious server to be able to sustain 10g rates to one client, let alone 100s)

[cnt]

Real men use wi-fi anyway.

The only reason 2.5G exists is because of Wifi. You need 2.5G to feed 802.11ac Wave 2 APs, which max out at 2.34Gb.

Of course, that's theoretical max, so you still benefit if you only feed it 1G.

You dont need 2.5 Gig for 802.11ac wave 2.
Thats just ridicolous. I know some accesspoint models have it, but no one uses it tbh. Most of the times you dont even need 1 Gig. Since your clients are not cabable of more than maybe 2x2 or 3x3 (Macbook) spatial streams. You need a lot of clients that are also wave 2 capable PLUS you need to be somewhere where you have no airports or neighbours, to even get to use 1 Gig - and by then the air spectrum is already filled (good luck using 160 mhz wide channel).
You won't get 1 gig or 2.5 gig with ONE client, period.

With wifi6, 802.11ax you can go over 1 gig but it wont happen until 80% of your clients is wifi6 capable and it will not happen with ONE wifi6 client, you have to have a lot of clients... so maybe in 3 years 2.5 gig for pure wifi6 networks is good. But also because most new APs have dual 5 ghz + 2.4 ghz. (And this is only nice when you have like a lot of clients)

Btw, data rates are not actual "speed". Speed is about half the specified data rate. Rest is overhead etc.
Wifi is half duplex by nature so it will never be better than cable, though wifi6 is better for high user density areas.

I wouldnt get 2.5 or 5 gig ports anyway on my switches. Better get a dedicated 10 gbit pcie card if you have a DAW and a backup server or fileserver.

All I said was that wave 2 wifi is the only reason 2.5G exists, and that to exceed 1G of bandwith, you need to run 2.5G to your APs. Both statements are true and neither is ridiculous.

No, its not the only reason 2.5G exists. Where did you hear that?
Problem is that you will not exceed 1 Gbit even with from the high-end laptops with 802.11ac wave 2 wifi-chips, so yes, it is ridiculous to even think about getting expensive 2.5G switches for that purpose. Better get two AP's and spread out the coverage, nr of users per AP and have a better channel efficiency + redundancy. It's only sales pitch arguments that has little bearing on reality to get 2.5G switches for WIFI. If you are interested in how WIFI works, checkout the literature from CWNP.com. I can recommend all of them, actually goes much deeper and they are a lot better than Cisco's, since these are vendor neutral, you don't get to read any sales narratives. Actually some AP's have 2x1 Gbit ethernet ports which makes more sense, you can then use them as a port-channel and still use 1 Gbit switches.
Please name ONE laptop (Mac or PC) that has 4 or more spatial streams in their wave 2 chip. The best ones have 3 spatial streams last time I checked. Now take a look at the document below and remember that data rates is equal to about half the throughput (overhead is actually higher in channel bonding so 160 Mhz channel width is plain stupid if you're not doing a point-to-point setup.

Date rates vs QAM, Spatial streams, short/long GI etc (and remember these are not "theoretical" throughputs, only theoretical connection data rates: (so about 50% of the data rate = throughput)
To get 256 QAM you need to be only a few meters in clear sight from the AP. If a human body gets in the way between the AP and the client, that is about -3 dB right there..

Conclusion is that your air environment + clients chipsets will stop you from ever reaching 1 Gbit at the ethernet port of an AP.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... ingle=true

[teilo]

All I said was that wave 2 wifi is the only reason 2.5G exists, and that to exceed 1G of bandwith, you need to run 2.5G to your APs. Both statements are true and neither is ridiculous.

No, its not the only reason 2.5G exists. Where did you hear that?
Problem is that you will not exceed 1 Gbit even with from the high-end laptops with 802.11ac wave 2 wifi-chips, so yes, it is ridiculous to even think about getting expensive 2.5G switches for that purpose. Better get two AP's and spread out the coverage, nr of users per AP and have a better channel efficiency + redundancy. It's only sales pitch arguments that has little bearing on reality to get 2.5G switches for WIFI. If you are interested in how WIFI works, checkout the literature from CWNP.com. I can recommend all of them, actually goes much deeper and they are a lot better than Cisco's, since these are vendor neutral, you don't get to read any sales narratives. Actually some AP's have 2x1 Gbit ethernet ports which makes more sense, you can then use them as a port-channel and still use 1 Gbit switches.
Please name ONE laptop (Mac or PC) that has 4 or more spatial streams in their wave 2 chip. The best ones have 3 spatial streams last time I checked. Now take a look at the document below and remember that data rates is equal to about half the throughput (overhead is actually higher in channel bonding so 160 Mhz channel width is plain stupid if you're not doing a point-to-point setup.

Date rates vs QAM, Spatial streams, short/long GI etc (and remember these are not "theoretical" throughputs, only theoretical connection data rates: (so about 50% of the data rate = throughput)
To get 256 QAM you need to be only a few meters in clear sight from the AP. If a human body gets in the way between the AP and the client, that is about -3 dB right there..

Conclusion is that your air environment + clients chipsets will stop you from ever reaching 1 Gbit at the ethernet port of an AP.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... ingle=true

Are you trying to impress us with your knowledge? Because you certainly aren't arguing with me, given that I did not say anything about wave 2 beyond it's max theoretical bandwidth. Also, everything you write assumes we are talking about a single client. But I doubt you have my concerns about trying to support high-density wireless clients at speed, in the enterprise.

Also, wave 2 is why 2.5G exists. If you had been in this industry as long as I have, you would know this. (Yes, your attempt to "educate" me is rather presumptuous given how little, up to this message, I have written). 2.5G and 5G ethernet is specifically designed to address the problem of enterprises with large AP deployments who would not be able to benefit substantially from high-density wave 2 APs without replacing the existing Cat 5e or Cat 6 cabling infrastructure which is currently designed to carry both data and PoE. Even the wikipedia article says as much:

The intermediate speeds became relevant around 2014 as it became clear that it would not be possible to run 10GBASE-T over the Cat5e cable that had been used for the wiring in many buildings but that, with the development of fast WiFi protocols such as IEEE 802.11ac, there was a significant demand for cheap uplink faster than 1000BASE-T offered. IEEE 802.3bz will also support Power over Ethernet, which has generally not been available at 10GBASE-T.

And Wifi 6 makes this even more relevant and necessary.

[Pictus]

UPDATE:
Seems like the bug is fixed, go to the motherboard site, download the LAN
firmware update and the new driver.
1 - Update the firmware
2 - Install the new driver