Quantcast
BROWSE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
Phonex Neverwire USB
 
Author:
Editor:
Sponsor:
Published:
Richard Poelling
Kurtis
Phonex
Apr. 17, 2004
Testing

To determine what kinds of speeds I was getting from my setup, I used a program called Qcheck that is distributed by IXIA. This free utility allows for the determination of response time (latency) and throughput. To do this, the program has to be installed on all machines used in the test. The program runs as a service in the background. It does enable you to test from either direction on any two machines that it is installed on, (i.e. A to B, or B to A).

Each test ran with the same parameters, and I ran it 5 times to get a good average. The final results are the average from 3 different machines all located on the same switch. This should compensate for differences in hardware and networking components between each machine. I tested the USB device attached to my desktop system, while moving the NeverWire 14 device to different outlets in my home.

Response Time Testing

To determine the latency (time from point A to point B), I employed the Qcheck from my source machine to 3 other machines to give a good average read. For the response time runs, I set the program to do 10 iterations with a packet size of 32 kBytes. This is the largest size that can be tested with this software. The test system where the USB is located is in the basement of my home. Outlets labeled as close are a crossed the room on the opposite wall. The Isolated Outlet Upstairs is a separate 20 Amp circuit used for a window AC unit and is thus isolated from the rest of the circuits in the house. The other upstairs outlet is approximately 1 ft to left of the isolated one. The Close (Surge Supressor) is just that, the unit was plugged into the same outlet, except that it was routed through a surge suppressor. This type of hookup is expressly warned against in the manual, and you can see why: the 50% increase in response time. The 100 Mb is the stock NIC in my machine which was disabled during testing.

Response Time Testing (lower is better)
Close Same Room
Close (Surge Protector)
Upstairs Outlet Opposite End
Upstairs Isolated Opposite End
Hallway
Bedroom 1 Outlet # 1
Bedroom 1 Outlet # 2
Bedroom 2 Outlet # 1
Bedroom 3 Outlet # 1
100MB
51.07
125.60
64.07
54.67
63.40
55.60
55.23
51.93
53.20
4.53
88.11
0
Response Time (ms)
150
 
Average speed of 3 machines
 

For the most part, the speeds of the NeverWire USB stayed about the same. There was some variance between outlets, but nothing compared to plugging it into a surge suppressor. Still, it can not compete with a Fast Ethernet connection (100Mb).

Throughput Testing

For the determination of throughput, I used a data size setting of 1 MByte. This should give a good indication of the speed if you were attempting to transfer large emails or files. It also just happens to be the maximum the software will test at too, so 1 MByte it is.

Throughput Testing
Close Same Room
Close (Surge Protector)
Upstairs Outlet Opposite End
Upstairs Isolated Opposite End
Hallway
Bedroom 1 Outlet # 1
Bedroom 1 Outlet # 2
Bedroom 2 Outlet # 1
Bedroom 2 Outlet # 2
Bedroom 3 Outlet # 1
100MB
5.32
5.28
5.18
2.14
2.14
2.35
4.14
3.88
3.91
4.98
4.98
5.18
4.41
4.19
4.16
4.89
4.98
4.98
5.35
4.95
5.35
5.23
5.24
4.91
5.02
5.03
4.86
5.25
5.16
5.32
88.11
86.45
27.79
0
Throughput (Mbps)
100
 
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine 3
 

Again, the results appear to be similar to the response time testing. As expected, the surge suppressor kills approximately 50% of the throughput. Another interesting thing to note is that I appear to have a bottleneck with machine 3. This only shows up in the 100 Mb Fast Ethernet connection test. Even though I have managed to drop my throughput to about 28 Mbps, this does not affect the NeverWire since its average throughput sits at 5 Mbps.

 
<< Previous
Page 3 of 4
Next >>
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Opening the Box, Initial Setup & Network Setup
Page 3: Testing
Page 4: Final Analysis & Conclusion

3 User Comments
1 - Posted by A Person on April 17, 2004 - 11:51 pm

I decided to try this technology out back in December so I bought the Gigafast Homeplug products. Well, after I bought the stuff I realized that the software doesn't support windoze 98, and considering that I have 2 win98 boxes this was a big disapointment. After setting up the rest of the computers I was informed by the Gigafast software that my power lines were poor quality and I was only going to be able to get 1Mb/s max. So I returned the stuff and went with 802.11g.

I have a feeling, based on my experience with Gigafast in the past, that my house (built in the 80's) does not have that bad of power lines. Hopefully anyone who uses Phonex has a better experience with them than I did with Gigafast.

Eventhough I sound bitter, am really happy I ended up going with wireless; the bandwidth is higher than my ISP can ever provide me and my few wireless devices work everywhere in my house.

2 - Posted by Kurtis on April 18, 2004 - 12:24 am

i have an 802.11b wireless network in my house and i love it. no regrets. i'd upgrade to 802.11g, but i don't really need to so I'll save myself the $ for now heh

3 - Posted by Rich on April 18, 2004 - 4:33 pm

I was worried that I might have problems with the wiring in my house. The house (and wiring) is circa 1968. I have fuses, not the circuit breakers that are found in most modern construction, and only 100 Amp service instead of 200 Amp. Why I haven't blown more fuses than I have is still beyond me. Amazingly, when you look at the graphs in the review, you can see that entire house has no problems. I am still looking at implementing a wireless solution in my home, yet have not settled on one yet. The biggest problem with the Phonex was finding a free plug to plug into. For some reason most of my wall outlets are full already. :P

Add Comment

To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields.

Username: *


Password: (optional)
(Remember my login information: )

Comment: *


What is 3+3?: *


Related Reviews