Help needed on what Wifi Router to get that can cope with increase wifi devices

I'm no expert but think my netgear router can't cope with the increasing wifi/internet hungry devices in my home. Either that or my ISP is to blame because they keep getting taken over and new companies have to reset/change their servers.

I spend lots of time having to reboot router or reset network adaptor. At last count I had about 14 devices. (including mobile phones, pc's, blu-ray player, freestat and wii).

So please advise or recommend what I should do.

Thanks

20 Comments

According to the hubby a router should be able to cope with 255 devices. Have you checked it has decent ventilation/ not too dusty? Mine used to die when it overheated....

Original Poster

zannaz82

According to the hubby a router should be able to cope with 255 devices. … According to the hubby a router should be able to cope with 255 devices. Have you checked it has decent ventilation/ not too dusty? Mine used to die when it overheated....


Yep, it's got loads of ventilation, sits on top of filing cabinet. Didn't know they should cope with 255 devices, or is that just the new ones?. Don't think it's dusty bill will check when i get a chance. Thanks.

Check for a firmware update as well. What model is it?

zannaz82

According to the hubby a router should be able to cope with 255 devices.



Does your hubby give this advice free?

Original Poster

scrooge

Check for a firmware update as well. What model is it?


Hi Scrooge,
From memory it is DG834G, did firmware upgrade over a year ago (it's an old model!).

if your router supports it, then I would stick ddwrt firmware on it - I have a Buffalo router with ddwrt on it and have about 10 devices connecting (PS3, XBox 360, Ipod Touch, 3 x Mobile phones, 2 Desktops, 1 laptop) and it never skips both in terms of performance.

its based on so many factors, how far away each device is from the router (signal strength), multi-path distortion, interference from external sources, what activity each device is creating, and remembering that wireless is half-duplex and is effectively a hub and not a switch

try changing the wifi channel, might help

Original Poster

Alfonse

its based on so many factors, how far away each device is from the router … its based on so many factors, how far away each device is from the router (signal strength), multi-path distortion, interference from external sources, what activity each device is creating, and remembering that wireless is half-duplex and is effectively a hub and not a switch


Everything used to work fine till we got extra devices, signal strength dropped and some devices prompted the "network adapter needs resetting" msg or kicked other devices of the wifi so only they were able to access it. Thats why I was thinking it might be router overload issue or ISP doing maintenance work.
I'm sure Google suggested it might be clash of devices using same ip address, and gave instructions to change IP settings but I didn't follow it up because I was worried I might mess things up.

Boabbyrab: I have changed channel from 8 (b only) to 6 (b only). Do I need to change the devices as well?
Thanks.

It should be able to perform fine with that amount of devices as stated. The devices should pick it up automatically even if you c hange the channel. I run my (DG834GT) on channel 11 g only, not sure why you use b only, i would at least use g&b option if you have it, g is faster than b.

Original Poster

munaaf

It should be able to perform fine with that amount of devices as stated. … It should be able to perform fine with that amount of devices as stated. The devices should pick it up automatically even if you c hange the channel. I run my (DG834GT) on channel 11 g only, not sure why you use b only, i would at least use g&b option if you have it, g is faster than b.



Update: Hi Munaaf. I changed settings as you suggested eg g&b and left channel at 6. I Had to run diagnostic check via vista prompts, because all wifi internet access was temporarily lost. After resets, now working very well and I'm sure seems much faster. Also my signal strength seems to have gone up from 2 to 3 bars.

Will see how I get on for next few days. Thanks everyone for your help, maybe I won't need a new router after all.


charlie brown

Update: Hi Munaaf. I changed settings as you suggested eg g&b and left … Update: Hi Munaaf. I changed settings as you suggested eg g&b and left channel at 6. I Had to run diagnostic check via vista prompts, because all wifi internet access was temporarily lost. After resets, now working very well and I'm sure seems much faster. Also my signal strength seems to have gone up from 2 to 3 bars.Will see how I get on for next few days. Thanks everyone for your help, maybe I won't need a new router after all.



Nice to hear! Hope it stays working

zannaz82

According to the hubby a router should be able to cope with 255 devices. … According to the hubby a router should be able to cope with 255 devices. Have you checked it has decent ventilation/ not too dusty? Mine used to die when it overheated....




what logical reason would it be 255? apart from it is the typical max decimal value of one byte?


Edited by: "jayjayuk1234" 14th Apr 2011

jayjayuk1234

what logical reason would it be 255? apart from it is the typical max … what logical reason would it be 255? apart from it is the typical max value of one byte?



because a router can typically assign 2^8 -1 amount of IP addresses in it's range.
i.e. 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.255
with one reserved for the login page, and 0.0 not being accessible. Typically each new simultaneous connection will connect as 0.2 then 0.3 etc until the max of 0.255 (when it cannot go past 255 for the last part of the address)

munaaf

because a router can typically assign 2^8 -1 amount of IP addresses in … because a router can typically assign 2^8 -1 amount of IP addresses in it's range.i.e. 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.255with one reserved for the login page, and 0.0 not being accessible. Typically each new simultaneous connection will connect as 0.2 then 0.3 etc until the max of 0.255 (when it cannot go past 255 for the last part of the address)



That makes 254, not 255, which is only a theoretical maximum anyway... besides, wasn't really my point

jayjayuk1234

That makes 254, not 255, which is only a theoretical maximum anyway... … That makes 254, not 255, which is only a theoretical maximum anyway... besides, wasn't really my point



lol yeah theoretically 255, although .255 and .0 cant be used so 253. Anyway didn't really get your point then? Unless you mean why is it up to 255 theoretical max instead of like 128?

munaaf

lol yeah theoretically 255, although .255 and .0 cant be used so 253. … lol yeah theoretically 255, although .255 and .0 cant be used so 253. Anyway didn't really get your point then? Unless you mean why is it up to 255 theoretical max instead of like 128?



Nah, i meant, just because the max of a byte is 255 ( reason for your initial explanation of why there are 2^8 -1, that isn't a fluke that it's 255, as you may know ), doesn't mean the router will automatically handle 255 devices connected, even if the number range permitted.

a lot of routers will probably overheat and die with that number of devices connected at the same time.

Edited by: "jayjayuk1234" 14th Apr 2011

Oh yeah of course ha, then again who has 255 wirelessly able devices to connect on 1 router heh, realistically after 10 you probably would notice some performance drop etc let alone hundreds!

Original Poster

Hi All, still going well with most of the devices connected at same time. Also still noticing speeds seem faster and signal strength still averaging (better then before) 3 out of 5 bars. Other device users haven't complained either. So we're a happy wifi household again.

jayjayuk1234

what logical reason would it be 255? apart from it is the typical max … what logical reason would it be 255? apart from it is the typical max decimal value of one byte?



one logical reason would be a Class C subnet for starters which is a separate DHCP VLAN to the router subnet or even supernetted etc etc, its pendantic to question a subnet host range like that
Edited by: "Alfonse" 14th Apr 2011
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text
    Top Discussions
    1. What an absolute disgrace2158
    2. Just heard this...2 ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ congrats to all on 392k ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★7764007
    3. ❅☁☁❅ I want☼to talk☼about the☔WEATHER☔no politics☃no religion❅☁☁❅18846089
    4. hOW SHOCKED WERE YOU AT THE GLASGOW FRUIT MARKET CONFLAGRATION??66

    See more discussions