Best home router for OpenWrt

Thanks, but this sounds like the R7800 is also the better choice for my plan to do all the Ethernet-Routing of my 1000base switch through this OpenWRT device. So what does @neheb mean in the previous message that the Ethernet is the drawback?

As I will also have a small server (amd64, low-power AMD Embedded G-Series based, 4GB Ram) with real Linux, I was not sure if I do the routing there. It would definitely have more freedom and provide more flexibility. But I planned to have basic important features like routing, firewall and VPN on a small device that is guaranteed to be online always, while that server will be more kind of a work in progress, sometimes rebooting for new kernels and stuff, maybe offline in vacation. I also like to reduce the total count of 24/7 machines to reduce the power footprint.

Some other specific question that could be affecting my next device choice: I tried to create a link aggregation with tagged VLAN on the Linksys WRT1200. While the kernel was able to do that I realized that the switch of that device was not capable. I tried long while discussing with experts on #openwrt@freenode and gave up finally.
When routing all 1000base communication via that OpenWRT, it would be nice to have it connected with 2GBit instead of 1GBit, bonding/aggregating 2 ethernet ports to one VLAN tagged virtual device. All networks to be routed I would tag on the switch. Are there devices better equipped for such things?

That R8000 sounds also a good choice and well enough supported, though a bit older than the (still preferred) R7800. But that R8000 looks like the antennas are not that easy to replace like the RP-SMA sockets of the other devices?

If you're looking for routing a 1 GBit/s WAN, even more so with link aggregation, the r7800 is not an option, read up the details at:

Without having a performance reference for the r8000, I would seriously doubt that it can cope with that either. It was released in friggin' 2014, what do you think, how many 1 GBit/s prosumer home connections exist back then; that wasn't even on the table for commercial branch offices using 1000 quid routers.

1 GBit/s routing and above is still firmly within the enterprise domain, especially beyond that (link aggregation) you are looking at mid-end x86_64 only (intel i5/ ryzen 5 and up), combined with a good AP (this role can be fullfilled by the r7800/ nbg6817).

There’s a separate processor on that router that is able to handle network processing and achieve 1GB speeds, but there is no real driver for it. So you’re stuck with sub 1GB speeds.

I realized that Netgear is not for me either and for now the winner of my 5 routers remains the old Linksys, but WiFi continues to be a problem. I am oriented to an embedded quad-core AMD with 3 GB of RAM and OpenWrt. Can it handle the gigabit?

Probably, see numbers for a quad-core AMD in https://forum.openwrt.org/t/comparative-throughput-testing-including-nat-sqm-wireguard-and-openvpn/44724. A 4-core AMD GX-412TC reached 1740 Mbps in a bidirectional RRUL test (no traffic shaper, no PPPoE, just NAT and firewalling), With traffic shaper bidirectional aggregate (up- plus down-load rate) throughput decreases to 700 Mbps (with full MTU packets). So this specific device (an APU2 I believe) will do 1Gbps if NAT and modest firewalling is all that is required.
Other AMD quad-cores will have different performance profiles, i.e. a ryzen3 will probably be better suited.

The product is an APU4C4. What do you think: Celeron or i5? I want only managing bidirectional 1 Gbit/s.

Maybe this one for you, though it seems lacking a SFP cage


[1] https://www.fanlesstech.com/2020/01/exclusive-tiger-lake-nuc.html

Support for SFP for home use with various ISPs is now pure utopia for me, so it is no longer on the list of my interests. The product you have indicated to me seems very good, but perhaps it is excessive. In the end I don't use VPN (luckily) and I just want speed and DNSSEC active (but it shouldn't be a problem for speed).

I use a J1900 based motherboard, and I shape my gigabit fiber down to about 700Mbps in order to avoid saturating it with interrupts (I somewhat overload the box with addl services). I have been running it for about 4 years and am likely to want an upgrade soonish. The devices that make the most sense are Celeron j4105 or maybe 3xxx series. I plan to stick with quad core.

1 Like

Is OpenWrt Linux fake or something like that?

What's wrong with the Ethernet? To be honest I've just replaced unmanaged Linksys switch with r7800 and can see great improvement and no issues whatsoever.

Understand although in real life application I am getting up to 700 Mbps actual data throughput:
CIFS server-Ethernet-R7800 router-Ethernet-R7800 access point-5G WiFi-client
To me that's wire speed or very close to it.

Sure. It's acceptable for most people.

It is. I would not call it a Linux distribution just like Android isn't one. It's based on Linux.
Ok, even Android has it's place in the Linux Timeline:
LinuxTimeline | Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg
And Openwrt has it's own single branch as well.
What I think is missing for a distribution is the distribution installer. I learned I can update some of the packages but never keep the OpenWRT installation updated like a rolling release. I need to re-install an updated OpenWRT image while loosing all my configuration. My Linux server I can keep updated over years or decades. Just my opinion, maybe it's a real Linux :wink:

No packages can be updated for a matter of storage space. But you can install the update image without losing the configuration with syupgrade (without putting -n) or in LuCI, from 19.07.

1 Like

I use a Meraki MX60 and a MX60W and both have 1GB of NAND flash on them I should try and do a full upgrade on the next release to see if it actually does anything.

I would consider the Openwrt as an Embedded Distribution as it has everything I would expect to see from a standard linux distro with the exception of an installer (Mostly because the hardware it targets does not do traditional boots).

It's a real Linux kernel with authentic open source packages that just happen to be built for embedded hardware.

OpenWrt is adapted for devices with little space. Only some have a lot of space and have to think for most.

Entirely understood, I'm simply stating that I wanted to use a device with large flash to test an upgrade. I assume it works because there wouldn't be an upgrade button if it never worked anywhere :slight_smile:

1 Like

I've repeated the test using iperf3 that time and here are the results (R7800 to R7800):

Connecting to host 192.168.1.1, port 5201
[  5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46060 connected to 192.168.1.1 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   101 MBytes   844 Mbits/sec    0    491 KBytes
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   109 MBytes   916 Mbits/sec    0    638 KBytes
[  5]   2.00-3.02   sec   106 MBytes   876 Mbits/sec    0    638 KBytes
[  5]   3.02-4.02   sec  91.2 MBytes   765 Mbits/sec    0    669 KBytes
[  5]   4.02-5.01   sec   111 MBytes   934 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   5.01-6.01   sec  90.0 MBytes   756 Mbits/sec    0   1024 KBytes
[  5]   6.01-7.00   sec   106 MBytes   901 Mbits/sec    0   1024 KBytes
[  5]   7.00-8.01   sec   109 MBytes   906 Mbits/sec    0   1024 KBytes
[  5]   8.01-9.01   sec   101 MBytes   849 Mbits/sec    0   1024 KBytes
[  5]   9.01-10.01  sec  80.0 MBytes   674 Mbits/sec    0   1024 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
[  5]   0.00-10.01  sec  1004 MBytes   842 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  5]   0.00-10.03  sec  1004 MBytes   840 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

To me that looks very good and should be considered full wire speed.