12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Brilliant alternative to wi-fi,
This review is from: Devolo dLAN 500 AVmini (IEEE 1901/ HPlug AV) Starter Kit - (2x plugs) (Electronics)
I wrote the following review for the dLAN triple pack, but it all applies equally to the twin pack too.
I bought this triple pack because I live in a house with three floors. Wireless reception was patchy on the top floor and, what's more, owing to a strategically placed boiler it was non-existent in one room on the first floor too. My goal was to position a wireless router in a central location in the house. The problem is: how do I connect it to the main router downstairs (with its broadband connection)? I'm not a fan of wireless repeaters. Every repeater you add basically halves the bandwidth of your network (half of it is consumed by relaying signals). That was a non-starter.
The answer is this product. Develo have dubbed it 'dLAN', so I shall continue with that nickname. They are, quite literally, plug and play. I plugged one into the router downstairs, one into the wireless router upstairs, and that was it. (Of course, on a separate issue, I had to disable the DHCP in the second router - only one per network, disabled uPnP and disable QoS/firewall. All I want the second router to do is to provide a wireless access point.) You can do some tweaking if necessary: after installing the software provided you may enter a password for the network. I haven't bothered, but I guess if you live in a flat it might be something you need to address.
The third plug goes straight into my computer. Since I have a gigabit Ethernet adapter in my computer, these plugs take advantage of that and utilise the extra bandwidth gigabit Ethernet offers over the standard 100mbps Ethernet. My computer is on the same floor (1st) as one of the plugs, and it reports a sync speed of 310mbps. With the plug on the ground floor, the reported sync speed is 240mbps. It's also interesting to note that in my house, the ground floor is on a separate ring to the first/second floors, so despite having a bit more distance to travel, the network speed doesn't diminish all that much.
In this setup, I'm able to copy from a hard wired iMac to my dLAN PC at 91mbps. At this point, it is actually the hard-wired iMac that is the bottle neck on transfer speeds. I need to purchase a couple more of these, but when both computers are using dLAN (and both have gigabit Ethernet cards), I'm able to achieve transfer speeds of >100mbps. So this option supersedes standard 100mbps Ethernet. In my book, that is a stunning result. (I should add, though, that I live in a new build, so the wiring is as good as could possibly be.) Of course, if you want the fastest network around, you'd use gigabit routers and wire up your house with CAT6 cabling, however in many situations this is a complete pain to do. So as a balance of ease to install, neatness and decent transfer rates, the dLAN gets my vote for sure.
Compared to a wireless connection, dLAN destroys it. Latency is basically at the same level as a standard wired network. (Ping times are typically 2ms for me.) This makes dLAN a much better choice than wireless for gamers. The connection is rock solid, won't cut out randomly, doesn't need the occasional reboot and is faster than wifi in all but the most ideal of circumstances (top-dollar wireless router sitting next to the computer). I only have wireless available for smart phone connection and the odd laptop that comes into the house.
I plan on buying more of these to dLAN up as much of my house as possible. The more of my computers, consoles and media streamers that are hooked together (thus avoiding the bottleneck of my router), the better.
One final note: these plugs can't run a network in isolation. By this, I mean that you will still need to retain your router for your broadband connection and use one plug to connect this to the rest of your dLAN network. The reason is that these plugs don't replace the network structure (they don't do DHCP and dish out IP addresses, for example). As far as the computers on your network can tell, they don't exist - they may as well be in a hard wired network. (Technically speaking, they operate on the data link layer of the network.) So you need to use these to augment your current network, not replace it. However, given I'm sure most people would like to retain some sort of wireless network (phones/ tablets/ laptops), this shouldn't be an issue.
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Mar 2013 11:37:04 GMT
it is not possible to get gigabit throughput speeds if bottleneck is not on gigabit
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2013 11:47:24 GMT
If you plug one of these into a gigabit network, the bottleneck will be transmitting data over the power lines. The "500 mbps" tag refers to maximum sync speed in ideal conditions. In real life usage, you might get 250-300 mbps sync speeds (I do). BUT, this speed is not a data transfer rate: it also includes all the data overheads needed to make it operate (eg. Encryption, noise, data loss). I have found that mine operate around 100-110mbps MAX.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2013 17:52:27 GMT
why do you think i wrote "throughput"???
only R3TARD and sales (who are also retards) can talk about sync speeds, which are totally irrelevant in real life...
no, your network is NOT possible to push at 100-110 as long as you have even one interface not-gigabit-one.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2013 18:13:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2013 18:15:03 GMT
Okay, a few things in the order that I thought them:
1) Referring to someone who took the time to reply as a "R3TARD" is a pretty stupid manoeuvre.
2) Actually, having even one non-gigabit adapter on a gigabit network won't affect items that can run at gigabit speeds. I have exactly this scenario at home: four plugs are used: 2x100mbps and 2x1000mbps connected. Gigabit to gigabit see speeds around 100-110mbps data transfer (i.e. what you referred to as throughput). Anything connected to a regular Ethernet socket is restricted to 100mbps.
3) I understand the difference between actual transfer rates and the quoted sync speeds - I was writing exactly that as I wasn't sure if you understood the difference or not.
At the time I wrote this review I was using a 100mbps router. What I meant was that by bypassing it I achieved better than 100mbps speeds. And that remains true.
Finally "AbortionNo.org" has no place being a username. No-one cares about your political views on amazon.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2013 20:24:27 GMT
yes you've just proven you are an 1d10t and you have no life, if you can make such an effort into useless 'blog'. so much british and very fulfilling indeed...
i don't care if as you say "no-one" cares, i KNOW that some One does!
i'm glad you like my nick! i have it also as my SSID so that even neighbour kids can see it and find the truth! ;)
fires of Hell are awaiting you!
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2013 17:37:11 BDT
Robert W. Chapman says:
Many thanks for such an excellent review.. You have put an a lot of time and effort to help people like myself, only having a computer for 4 years.. Though I am 66 years of age but was a Motor Engineer, so gradually picking up the computer language (very slowly) I might add.. please carry on with your reviews and do not take any notice of such rude people as Abort Noorg. Many Thanks.. Bob Chapman..
‹ Previous 1 Next ›