Real World 802.11ac Performance Under OS X

A good friend of mine recently bought an older house and had been contemplating running a bunch of Cat6 through the crawlspace in order to get good, high-speed connectivity through his home. Pretty stoked about what I found with 802.11ac performance on the MacBook Air, I thought I came across a much easier solution to his problem. I shared my iPerf data with him, but he responded with a totally valid request: was I seeing those transfer rates in real world file copies?

I have an iMac running Mountain Lion connected over Gigabit Ethernet to my network. I mounted an AFP share on the MacBook Air connected over 802.11ac and copied a movie over.

21.2MB/s or 169.6Mbps is the fastest I saw.

Hmm. I connected the iMac to the same ASUS RT-AC66U router as the MacBook Air. Still 21.2MB/s.

I disabled all other wireless in my office. Still, no difference. I switched ethernet cables, I tried different Macs, I tried copying from a PC, I even tried copying smaller files - none of these changes did anything. At most, I only saw 21.2MB/s over 802.11ac.

I double checked my iPerf data. 533Mbps. Something weird was going on.

I plugged in Apple’s Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adaptor and saw 906Mbps, clearly the source and the MacBook Air were both capable of high speed transfers.

What I tried next gave me some insight into what was going on. I setup web and FTP servers on the MacBook Air and transferred files that way. I didn’t get 533Mbps, but I broke 300Mbps. For some reason, copying over AFP or SMB shares was limited to much lower performance. This was a protocol issue.

Digging Deeper, Finding the Culprit

A major component of TCP networking, and what guarantees reliable data transmission, is the fact that all transfers are acknowledged and retransmitted if necessary. How frequently transfers are acknowledged has big implications on performance. Acknowledge (ACK) too frequently and you’ll get terrible throughput as the sender has to stop all work and wait for however long an ACK takes to travel across the network. Acknowledge too rarely on the other hand and you run the risk of doing a lot of wasted work in sub optimal network conditions. The TCP window size is a variable that’s used to define this balance.

TCP window size defines the max amount of data that can be in flight before an acknowledgement has to be sent/received. Modern TCP implementations support dynamic scaling of the TCP window in order to optimize for higher bandwidth interfaces.

If you know the round trip latency of a network, TCP window size as well as the maximum bandwidth that can be delivered over the connection you can actually calculate maximum usable bandwidth on the network.

The ratio of the network’s bandwidth-delay product to the TCP window size gives us that max bandwidth number.

The 2-stream 802.11ac in the new MacBook Air supports link rates of up to 867Mbps. My iPerf data showed ~533Mbps of usable bandwidth in the best conditions. Round trip latency over 50 ping requests between the MBA client and an iMac wired over Gigabit Ethernet host averaged 2.8ms. The bandwidth-delay product is 533Mbps x 2.8ms or 186,550 bytes. Now let’s look at the maximum usable bandwidth as a function of TCP window size:

Impact of TCP Window Size on 802.11ac Transfer Rates, 533Mbps Link, 2.8ms Latency
Window Size Bandwidth-Delay Product TCP Window/BDP Percentage Link Bandwidth Max Realized Bandwidth
32KB 186550B 32768/186550B 17.6% 533Mbps 93.6Mbps
64KB 186550B 65536/186550B 31.1% 533Mbps 187.2Mbps
128KB 186550B 131072/186550B 70.3% 533Mbps 374.5Mbps
256KB 186550B 262144/186550B 140.5% 533Mbps 533Mbps

The only way to get the full 533Mbps is by using a TCP window size that’s at least 256KB.

I re-ran my iPerf test and sniffed the packets that went by to confirm the TCP window size during the test. The results came back as expected. OS X properly scaled up the TCP window to 256KB, which enabled me to get the 533Mbps result:

I then monitored packets going by while copying files over an AFP share and found my culprit:

OS X didn’t scale the TCP window size beyond 64KB, which limits performance to a bit above what I could get over 5GHz 802.11n on the MacBook Air. Interestingly enough you can get better performance over HTTP or FTP, but in none of the cases would OS X scale TCP window size to 256KB - thus artificially limiting 802.11ac.

I spent a good amount of time trying to work around this issue, even manually setting TCP window size in OS X, but came up empty handed. I’m not overly familiar with the networking stack in OS X so it’s very possible that I missed something, but I’m confident in saying that there’s an issue here. At a risk of oversimplifying, it looks like the TCP window scaling algorithm features a hard limit in OS X’s WiFi networking stack optimized for 802.11n and unaware of ac’s higher bandwidth capabilities. I should also add that the current developer preview of OS X Mavericks doesn’t fix the issue, nor does using an Apple 802.11ac router.

The bad news is that in its shipping configuration, the new MacBook Air is capable of some amazing transfer rates over 802.11ac but you won’t see them when copying files between Macs or PCs. The good news is the issue seems entirely confined to software. I’ve already passed along my findings to Apple. If I had to guess, I would expect that we’ll see a software update addressing this.

802.11ac: 533Mbps Over WiFi Display
Comments Locked

233 Comments

View All Comments

  • appliance5000 - Friday, December 20, 2013 - link

    One word - tablets.
  • mikeztm - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Could that PCIe ssd works with Filevault2 without performance down?
    My 2011 MBA's SSD became much slower after enabling Filevault2.
  • |-8-| - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    >Five years after its introduction, the MacBook Air really has
    >grown into a very polished, mature platform. The 2013
    >model is really the epitome of what Apple set out to
    >build back in 2008, we just finally have the right hardware
    >available to realize the vision. Nearly every component has
    >been perfectly selected.

    For a ultramobile working horse, there are still some substantial shortcomings: It's still a glossy display tying your work place to indoor use or cloudy weather. There is still no LAN, no VGA - this makes many headaches in business everyday life.

    Maybe the author better leaves the marketing to Apple and concentrates on listing the Pros AND Cons of the product. It's a fine notebook, but definitely not perfect. ;)
  • weiran - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    You forget not everyone works in a corporation and has your requirements, especially considering this is a consumer device first and foremost. Apple looks to the future, which may mean minor pain in the short-term (having to use adapters for LAN and VGA), but realistically do you think in 2-3 years either of those will exist on any consumer laptop?
  • |-8-| - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    It's not about having these or that requirements. The author is praising something to the skies, that has obvious short comings. (Every product has that.) What would be more 'neutral' verbalised: The components are perfectly selected. [...]. There are a few compromises, so the screen has good contrast, but isn't really usable outside, for example in a park. Further missing legacy ports force to carry adapters for using old legacy infrastructure like LAN networks or common LCD projectors.

    It's about writing a review - I don't want to read someones marketing arguments.

    And by the way: Yes, VGA and LAN will be important in the future - most LCD projectors still have VGA and in contrast to HDMI or Displayport it really works reliable. I was at a conference a month ago - VGA saved me as Displayport wasn't working at all.
    LAN is without alternative to share and synchronise big amounts of data.
  • Grennum - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    VGA is certainly dying. By the end of the year all of the projects in our boardrooms will be replaced with Smart Screens, which you connect to via Wi-Fi. We have wired HDMI as a back-up works perfectly.

    Wired LAN is not dying by why would you ever have large amounts of data on your ultra portable laptop? That is just be irresponsible. If you are working with large data sets best to do it on a remote system where you have the performance, and reliability.

    This laptop would perfectly meet the needs for many of our business users, maybe not engineering, but then engineering wouldn't be looking at an ultraportable (remote engineering desktops notwithstanding)
  • |-8-| - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Maybe I should switch to your company. ;) There are some new projectors here having HDMI (sadly no Displayport). But most projectors are quite old (still working), these are connected via VGA. There is some time left, till the last old projectors die.

    Honestly I don't see a bonus in digital alternatives. THE standard is still missing, as most notebooks have either HDMI or Displayport.

    WLAN seems to have high signal latency between two computers. If you syncronise two big collections of many many subfolders and many small files in there, you notice a huge difference even between 100 MBit/s LAN and 300 MBit/s WLAN. I use WLAN for backups, but speed sucks.
    Another problem is security of data in the private sector, these security guys don't like WLAN.
  • A5 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Then maybe don't work in a park? I don't know of any laptop with a bright enough screen and good enough battery life to actually work outdoors.
  • |-8-| - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Well, the Samsung Series 9 900X3C-A04DE or the Lenovo x220/x230 are two, that can be used outdoors. There should be more, some Zenbooks have also matte screens.
  • darwinosx - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Well Samsung makes cheap junk that doesn't work and has no support.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now