Author Topic: WFH - bandwidth??  (Read 600 times)

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
WFH - bandwidth??
« on: March 30, 2020, 09:22:19 pm »
We have slowband here, 2.0-2.4Mbps is typical if nothing weird is happening.

What do folks think is sufficient to access work servers thru VPN, and browser-based remote desktop type thing? (some apps run direct from the remote PC, having connect to the VPN)

(sorry I don't know any more details - this is not for me! I'm *desperate* to avoid WFH, and so far succeeding.)

Thanks! x
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2020, 09:38:23 pm »
Those that run on the remote PC/remote desktop are going to be the best - screen refresh uses low bandwidth. It will depend a lot on what you actually get -  a real 2Mb/s is usable, large files will take noticeably longer but it's enough to run conferencing. Trouble is, if it is 2Mb shared, your real bandwidth may only be a fraction of that. VPN will connect you on a wet bit of string, doing stuff will just take longer.

Feanor

  • It's mostly downhill from here.
Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2020, 10:01:02 pm »
You'll have to suck it and see.
That would be enough for a Remote Desktop session, where no actual data passes up and down the link, just a screen image.
Might be rather sluggish, tho.

If you need to actually copy files down to the local machine to work with them, that will be a bit slow, and uploading them back to the mothership will be actually painful.

We have people who are WFH on poor ADSL connections in a rural area who are using 4G mobile dongles to get better connections.

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2020, 08:19:29 am »
That's what I used to have. It's just about manageable; file transfer is slow, voice conference calls were of poor quality*, video conferencing was out.

Of course if there are also teenagers in the house streaming Netflix all bets are off!

*The key thing for voice (and to some extent file transfer) is actually the upload speed which is typically a third of the download speed. I was often in the situation where I could hear the other callers but my voice was distorted.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2020, 08:29:10 am »
Friends who live in a broadband nightmare spot have negotiated faster and limitless data from their 4g supplier.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2020, 08:29:18 pm »
Depends on the size and sophistication of your employers too. Mine is vast and whilst it has very good VPN it also limits the VPN throughput for each user. So throwing a faster ISP link at it would actually not yield any advantage. So check with your IT to save paying for more than necessary.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2020, 08:37:22 pm »
Thanks folks!

That's what I used to have. It's just about manageable; file transfer is slow, voice conference calls were of poor quality*, video conferencing was out.

Fortunately conference calls (voice or video) are not required. File transfers? Very rarely, I think - their work is 90% on custom database applications (not "Apps" ! ).

I think the office servers are the bottleneck - the remote desktop seems fine until about 8:55am ...  ::-)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: WFH - bandwidth??
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2020, 09:03:16 pm »
If it’s Remote Desktop that bandwidth should be ok based on my experience. The issue may be on the license. The standard Microsoft free/cheap one is 2 users - I’m inferring this from my own experience so others please jump in if you know better :) - if a third user needs to use the same server someone needs to get kicked off.