Technical Help! (Not game related)

[(PSN)jFresh215]

I have a quick question involving my home internet network. Is it possible, and if so how much speed am I looking at losing if I "daisy chain" modems in my apartment? I have a little diagram made to illustrate what I mean. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. 

[RagingGrizzly]

I have no clue. You may want to ask this in 2 years when I have my computer repair and networking degree XD

[(PSN)jFresh215]

5 minutes ago, PUR3K1LL3R said:

I have no clue. You may want to ask this in 2 years when I have my computer repair and networking degree XD

Lol but I'm looking for immediate satisfaction. 

[RagingGrizzly]

1 minute ago, (PS4)jFresh215 said:

Lol but I'm looking for immediate satisfaction. 

Welp, you either gotta wait for someone competent enough to give you the answer here, or search the internet. :P

[Bouldershoulder]

Are those modems or routers? And why would you make a chain? I'd understand a wireless bridge, but isn't it better to simply use a longer cable?

Anyway, start pinging one while downloading something big, look at the results and double them for two devices.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Bouldershoulder

[(PSN)jFresh215]

Just now, Bouldershoulder said:

Are those modems or routers? And why would you make a chain? I'd understand a wireless bridge, but isn't it better to simply use a longer cable?

Yes it would be easier but it would mean having to run 3 120+ ft cables instead of just one and a few 25 footers. And I'm not sure what the best config would be honestly. That's why I ask. I just had the thought to do this since the WiFi from the WAP downstairs is crappy in the upstairs bedrooms. 

[Bouldershoulder]

You could use a RJ-45 socket

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

or wall plug

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

with only one cable, and move your WAP/modem/router whatever to where your devices are stationed.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Bouldershoulder

[Epsik-kun]

Depends on whether or not you need the first router to provide an internet access via Wi-Fi. If you need it - connect to the Internet on the first one and simply broadcast incoming signal on the second. If you only need Wi-Fi from the second router, consider using a longer cable or buying a switch instead of a router.

Anyway, it would affect overall network performance, but not by a large margin. I like to expect around 10% performance decrease for using a router. Of course, the actual result depends on the model, cables, distance, walls and settings.

[(XBOX)PopCactus218]

I'm going to guess that you mean routers and or hubs/switches and not modems. With that being the case, you are able to run 1 cable of cat5 for 100m (300ft) without signal loss. Pick a location that is centrally located for the second router to ensurethe best signal. Once you have that done, there are plenty of postings on the net on how to get two modems to work together.

Edited March 18, 2016 by (XB1)PopCactus218
Spacing

[(PSN)Onder6099]

2 hours ago, (PS4)jFresh215 said:

Yes it would be easier but it would mean having to run 3 120+ ft cables instead of just one and a few 25 footers. And I'm not sure what the best config would be honestly. That's why I ask. I just had the thought to do this since the WiFi from the WAP downstairs is crappy in the upstairs bedrooms. 

Isn ´t a time to buy stronger WiFi router?

[Rauxon]

4 hours ago, (PS4)jFresh215 said:

I have a quick question involving my home internet network. Is it possible, and if so how much speed am I looking at losing if I "daisy chain" modems in my apartment? I have a little diagram made to illustrate what I mean. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. 

Performance over Cat-5 (assuming the cables are up to spec) is such that you shouldn't lose much performance.  I would recommend setting the second to just act as a switch and wireless access point (rather than doing NAT) mainly because of the implications if you are hosting.

Quite a few people run this sort of setup without a problem - ISP provided router, and then one that actually is worth using behind it :)

Using wireless to provide that middle link (instead of a second Cat-5) would be a very bad idea.

[Bouldershoulder]

Using wireless is a bad idea for games, especially if there is more than one device connected in such a way. You will have huge delays, because transmitter deals with one device at a time, putting packets in queue. Wires are much more reliable. And the less other devices you have, the smaller is ping time. You won't notice this under light load; but when somethin big comes, first one router will have to process the data, then the next.

My Linksys e900 router lies right a-top the pc (connected with cable), I've run some random download with 8-10 MB/s and look what it've done

 

Spoiler

Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time <1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time <1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =4 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =13 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =12 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =13 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =14 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =13 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =10 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =6 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =2 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =2 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =11 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time <1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =2 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =8 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =1 ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes =32 time =12 ms TTL=64

With another router in the path I would have double the delays. With other devices downloading something, it would be even worse.

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Bouldershoulder

[Rounpositron]

Ordis will take care of this.