Seeking non-FreeNAS-related help from my FreeNAS friends: WiFi throughput issue with Surface Pro 3

[scurrier]

I come to you with a head scratcher. I am getting slow WiFi throughput during file transfers on my Surface Pro 3, which has 2x2 802.11ac WiFi. I went through the wringer with Microsoft support on it and they offered me a warranty exchange, but I have a suspicion that the problem is with all Surface Pro 3's and not just mine. But maybe you can help me see a problem with my testing or expectations that I hadn't considered. Here's a description of the problem...

• My FreeNAS box can serve two wired clients at 100+ MB/s each, via LACP. So I don't consider it to be a feasible bottleneck.
• My WiFi access point is a Ruckus R500 (a $650 enterprise-grade access point with 2x2 802.11ac)
• My switch is a Netgear GS748TPS (a generation-old, enterprise-grade, 48-port POE switch)
• The path between the SP3 and the FreeNAS box is:
  SP3 -> 802.11ac wifi -> Ruckus R500 -> Netgear GS748TPS -> LACP Ethernet -> FreeNAS
• There are no other devices on the 5GHz band, the 802.11ac is enabled on both ends, and the SP3 is close to the AP with line-of-sight
• I can only get about 15 MB/s file transfers of large files via CIFS from the FreeNAS to the SP3. I believe a reasonable real-world throughput expectation is more like 45 MB/s.

These devices seem to have historically had wifi issues, but I am trying to convince myself that an issue of this magnitude would not have been put up with by enterprise customers of the SP3 after nearly 1.5 years of being released. Still, there are still monthly updates to the SP3 and just last month Microsoft pulled an update that had WiFi in it. I think it was because it broke many people's wifi and bluescreened other devices (according to anecdotes from user forums). So it is possible that they still have issues with this device and a new device will not fix my problem.

So, the question is: Can you see any flaws in my expectations or testing methodology?

Thanks in advance for your time.

 

[Ericloewe]

It really depends on the wireless environment.

With 3x3 802.11ac, with 80MHz channels and no competition, through a concrete slab, I can get roughly 150+Mb/s.

15MB/s=120Mb/s does not seem like a bad value for a somewhat constrained environment.

That said, my Surface Pro 3 used to suffer from immensely bad WiFi, especially with Cisco enterprise access points in a roaming setup, back when I got it (day one here, which was early September - so it wasn't even the original, supposedly even worse driver). Around January, the driver seemed stable enough. Currently, I don't really have any complaints, but I don't really measure its performance.

 

[cyberjock]

I think your expectations are a bit off.

Wifi is a convenience technology. Unfortunately because of that it will never be reliable, never provide anything near "test environment" for throughput.

Wifi has problems. That's the bottom line. For example:

1. You have reflections and whatnot off of the materials in your house, with some materials reflecting more at some frequencies and absorbing at others. Your physical laying is unique in that nobody else on the planet will have your exact floorplan in your house with your layout. Even claiming "but I'm sitting 10 fit away and it's line of sign" is not the same as making that same statement at my house.
   
2. Interactions between your hotspot and your wifi adapter will be unique because of your background noise. You and I have no way of looking at the device and actually determining how good/bad the background noise is at any given time. While its easy to verify a clean signal over wire (does it have breaks, cuts, etc.) you and I cannot say "yep... there's no background noise (intermittent or otherwise) so we simply have to accept whatever speed we get.
3. If you shop around and read lots of reviews there seems to always be "that combo" of a wifi adapter and a wifi hotspot that either suck horribly or are just amazing beyond all understanding. Nobody can explain it, we just have to deal with it.

Even at my house I have a "strong" wifi signal everywhere. There are times when I get 15MB/sec, and times when I can only do 5MB/sec. Same device in the same location. Why does it do that? Probably background noise because of my neighbors.

You aren't alone with this problem. In Australia a 21 foot dish was trying to find signals in outer space. Every so often they'd find signals that they couldn't explain. It confused and baffled them for more than 15 years. What was the cause? A microwave. No, the microwave didn't have to be "on" to cause the problem. It only happened when someone opened the microwave door before the microwave turned off on its own.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...cientists-turns-out-to-be-microwave-oven.html

So yeah, you (and I) need to basically accept that you get what you get. You may be able to tweak out some more speed or reliability by adjusting some of the knobs and buttons that the hotspot and wifi adapter use. But ultimately we have to be honest with ourselves. Wifi was not and will never be ideal, and we'll never get the speeds that we want out of wifi. That's just how it works when dealing with radio waves. It sucked when 802.11b came out, and it will still suck 20 years from now with whatever new 802.11xyz tech that is out then. Wifi was, is, and will always have limitations.

 

[Ericloewe]

• If you shop around and read lots of reviews there seems to always be "that combo" of a wifi adapter and a wifi hotspot that either suck horribly or are just amazing beyond all understanding. Nobody can explain it, we just have to deal with it.

One very curious example of this is a combo router/gateway + Optical Network Terminal + WiFi access point manufactured by Huawei, used by some ISPs here for their fiber service. That thing has unspecified 802.11n facilities, which hints at terrible performance. When combined with a specific 2x2 TP-Link 802.11ac USB adapter, it's somehow able to push close to 200Mb/s, which is over half the theoretical maximum of 300Mb/s, for 2x2 with 40MHz channels.

It sucked when 802.11b came out, and it will still suck 20 years from now

Well, 802.11b was essentially unusable. 2.4GHz know-how wasn't nearly as mature, so, beyond its inherent limitations, range was atrocious.

 

[nightshade00013]

Well, 802.11b was essentially unusable. 2.4GHz know-how wasn't nearly as mature, so, beyond its inherent limitations, range was atrocious.

Worked for a WISP at one point in time, had sveasoft firmware on my linksys router (just the little factory rubber duck omni antennas) was able to get a connection to home from a job site about 7 miles away with a 15 dbi gain Tranzeo radio. We regularly shot connections tower to tower 40 miles and tower to customer up to 20 miles. Everything was just real high gain and not having to deal with walls was a huge plus. However in the home wireless just plain sucks and troubleshooting it is no easier. Troubleshooting a connection to a tower ten miles line of sight is a headache as well since to drive to the tower is a 18 to 20 mile trip one way.

 

[scurrier]

Forgot to say that I'm using 80Mhz channels.

Confusing thing is that I can even get 30MB/sec on my 802.11ac phone, which you'd expect to be worse due to the constraints of phone design.

My old 802.11n laptop gets the same throughput under the same conditions, despite being the older tech. I understand the limitations of WiFi, but this just doesn't smell right.

Oh well, I was planning to give the Surface to my wife and get a real laptop anyway. After owning three Surface Pro's, I'm getting tired of issues with them and the small screen.

 

[nightshade00013]

Oh well, I was planning to give the Surface to my wife and get a real laptop anyway. After owning three Surface Pro's, I'm getting tired of issues with them and the small screen.

That's it, pawn it off on the wife and make sure she feels happy about it while you get something brand new and much better. Win Win situation there ;)

 

[cyberjock]

Confusing thing is that I can even get 30MB/sec on my 802.11ac phone, which you'd expect to be worse due to the constraints of phone design.

Do not be fooled. Phones get WAY more wifi and 3g/4g testing than many other wifi devices (like wifi adapters in laptops). Size isn't as important as it used to be.

If you really want to do a comparison between your phone and your laptop, find out the FCC IDs for both devices and look them up. All of the tested specs are available for you to view, so you can clearly see if one is just totally amazing compared to the other. With the phones I've bought, if you take the FCC IDs at their word, my phones have been better than my laptop wifi adapters for 3 years and counting.

 

[scurrier]

Well that is interesting! What specs should I expect to find in the FCC info? I'm imagining wading through a government database of mostly-useless info. Is it just tech specs like sensitivities and powers? Or does it even go into as-tested performance?