Limitations of ad-hoc network?

Cubytus

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 2, 2007
1,413
14
Hi to all,

not sure if this is the right place to start this topic, but here it is.

A few days ago I needed to transfer a large file between a MacBook Pro (802.11n) and a MacBook Air (802.11ac), so I created an Ad-Hoc network between the two, no security (I expected this to be brief, and all shares require a password).

What I expected was it would be running at close to maximum 802.11n speed since they were very close together, but instead I found it was limited to 54Mbps, or 802.11g speed. As a result, the transfer took much longer than necessary, and there was no backup solution since I didn't have my USB key.

Is the low speed an OS X limitation, or is there a way to make this kind of network run at the highest commonly supported speed?
 

Fishrrman

macrumors P6
Feb 20, 2009
17,200
5,545
I realize I'm a knuckle-dragger, but this sounds like one instance where a USB flash drive and some sneakers will do the job just as well, or even better… ;)
 

jbarley

macrumors 68040
Jul 1, 2006
3,773
1,616
Vancouver Island
It's cases like this where "DropCopy" a small free utility really shines.
Just select and drag, it's just that easy.
I have DropCopy installed on all my systems just for the ease of use.
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,849
716
Auckland
Not sure why but there is plenty of comment that ad-hoc mode will run at slower speeds than infrastructure mode (as a wifi router would use). Probably the result of using the minimal client hardware in the macs to emulate a router.

Best result would be a Thunderbolt cable I would have thought, if you needed to plan ahead for a possible repeat...
[doublepost=1486378540][/doublepost]
It's cases like this where "DropCopy" a small free utility really shines.
Just select and drag, it's just that easy.
I have DropCopy installed on all my systems just for the ease of use.
But the wifi won't run any faster just because you install that app, easy of use isn't the issue. So in cases like this its actually useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianBaughn

jbarley

macrumors 68040
Jul 1, 2006
3,773
1,616
Vancouver Island
Not sure why but there is plenty of comment that ad-hoc mode will run at slower speeds than infrastructure mode (as a wifi router would use). Probably the result of using the minimal client hardware in the macs to emulate a router.

Best result would be a Thunderbolt cable I would have thought, if you needed to plan ahead for a possible repeat...
[doublepost=1486378540][/doublepost]

But the wifi won't run any faster just because you install that app, easy of use isn't the issue. So in cases like this its actually useless.
Faster no, but the highest commonly supported speed, which is all the OP was asking for yes, and DRopCopy does this smoothly.
Small files it sends right off, larger files it first compresses the file and then sends it at the highest possible connection speed, which in my case 802.11n speed.
 

Cubytus

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 2, 2007
1,413
14
Not sure why but there is plenty of comment that ad-hoc mode will run at slower speeds than infrastructure mode (as a wifi router would use). Probably the result of using the minimal client hardware in the macs to emulate a router.
I would have thought the Mac had more than beefy enough specs to emulate not one, but multiple routers at the same time :-D

Best result would be a Thunderbolt cable I would have thought, if you needed to plan ahead for a possible repeat...
Interesting, but 1- tens of $ for a seldom-used cable seems a bit much and 2- My TB port is fried due to a coffee spill accident anyway.

Faster no, but the highest commonly supported speed, which is all the OP was asking for yes, and DRopCopy does this smoothly.
Small files it sends right off, larger files it first compresses the file and then sends it at the highest possible connection speed, which in my case 802.11n speed.
How would this app achieve such a feat? Does it bypass the OS framework for negotiating speed?
 

freediverx

macrumors 6502a
Feb 19, 2006
985
922
This is particularly annoying in light of Apple's abandonment of SD card slots. Carrying and using wires sucks. Apple's implication seems to be that local file transfers should be performed wirelessly. But there is no convenient or efficient solution for transferring photos from a wifi-capable digital camera to a Mac, especially if you're nowhere near a wifi router.

With modern Canon cameras, it's possible to easily transfer photos to an iOS device wirelessly using Canon's Camera Connect app. But there is no comparable solution to perform the same task with a Mac.