Worse. Almost all open source firmwares have worse wifi than oem due to drivers. The MediaTek devices are apparently about on par.
1 Like
Hi all,
I installed the r20681+10-5110cf7ebd on my 1900acs.
Excuse me for the OT, but tomorrow my ISP will enable my FTTH line, and i'm trying to get all ready for testing it while the technician will be there.
I'd like to ask for some help
The ISP gave me this params for the router configuration:
VLan: 835(data)
VLan: 836(voice)
Protocol: PPPoE
Encapsulation: LLC
NAT: enabled
COS data: 0 (IEEE 802.1 P)
COS voice: 5 (IEEE 802.1 P)
I changed the wan interface to wan.835 (VLAN 802.1q) and moved, after the picture has been taken, the wan6 to wan.835 as well.
Do i also need to add a wan.836 interface for the voice?
Eventually, the 836 interface has to be routed in any way to the lan ports?
There's anything more i need to do to make, at least, it connect to my new line and let me "surf"?
Thanks a lot to anyone who could help me clarify this
And again, sorry for the OT
Wouldn't be around here someone with a pre-fw4 image/sysupgrade for the wrt1900acV1 (mamba) ?
I've been using your build for a while after upgrading from a very old LEDE firmware but I really need banIP .
Thanks anyway for your work, your build is really non nonsense and very stable.
My 1G/200M ftth line has been enabled.
And this is the speedtest result:
190 M download, 190 M upload
Really disappointing.
Is there anything i could have messed on the router side?
irqbalance -on
Software flow offloading-on
Packet Steering-on
This is my network config
cat /etc/config/network
config interface 'loopback'
option device 'lo'
option proto 'static'
option ipaddr '127.0.0.1'
option netmask '255.0.0.0'
config globals 'globals'
option ula_prefix 'redacted::/48'
option packet_steering '1'
config device
option name 'br-lan'
option type 'bridge'
list ports 'lan1'
list ports 'lan2'
list ports 'lan3'
list ports 'lan4'
config interface 'lan'
option device 'br-lan'
option proto 'static'
option netmask '255.255.255.0'
option ip6assign '60'
option ipaddr '192.168.2.1'
config device
option name 'wan'
option macaddr 'redacted'
config interface 'wan'
option proto 'pppoe'
option ipv6 'auto'
option device 'wan.835'
option username 'user'
option password 'pass'
config interface 'wan6'
option proto 'dhcpv6'
option reqaddress 'try'
option reqprefix 'auto'
option device 'wan.835'
i'm really sad
Not sure what you mean by packet steering, but software offloading is incompatible with SQM. Something is wrong for you, I can get 500/35 Mbits even with SQM enabled on my WRT32X with OpenWrt 22.03. Keep in mind Irqbalance will not help this, there is no multi-CPU DSA it'll stay on CPU0 best I can tell.
/etc/config/network
config globals 'globals'
option packet_steering '1'
1 Like
Thanks and I saw your post on the other thread but what is the purpose in this? I've been using my mvebu (WRT32X) for years and it's been perfectly stable without doing this. Why would the OpenWrt project not just enable it for this target if it's actually needed?
commit outlined the default and why on a mvebu target you would probably want to enable. Personally, on my build I am using MQPrio with the queue restriction patch removed, running fine, YMMV.
1 Like
Thanks, I think the ultimate issue is that multi-CPU DSA is needed. The move to DSA without it always seemed very odd, even though it's from upstream Linux, because it lowered performance for all of OpenWrt devices.
I find it hard to attribute decline in throughput specifically to DSA change, there have been a lot of mvneta changes with kernel version bumps. Unless you have an ISP feed in the neighbourhood of a symmetric 1G/1G link, the multi-cpu-port DSA support should be a non-issue. And if you do, maybe the PR allowing support might still build.
Yeah, I think there's something wrong with my line, which is not related to the build or router config
But I was trying to check everything, just to be sure
Thanks
Fair enough, but there seems to be no disputing a performance hit with DSA. It's not an issue for me and I've had good experience and perfect stablity on 22.03, but I saw threads showing DSA is even worse on the ipq806x.
Nevertheless I went ahead and enabled packet steering on my WRT32X under Network > Interfaces > Global network options. Don't see any difference yet in a quick speedtest but I'll keep testing it out.
After a month of trying to upgrade my WRT3200 from the Davidc502 r13342 snapshot...
I gave up. Tried all the suggestions on here. WiFi plain and simple is broke after this build. I dug my WRT1900acs out and gee what do you know? As reported above upgrading to 22.03.0 is stable!!
I played around with Divested, and PureFusion. Both stable WiFi and speeds. Nice builds!
Right now I'm running a basic 22.03.0-rc6 using packages I like from the other 2 builds. And added adblock, dnscrypt-proxy2, bcp38, dashboard, etc.
I even added luci-app-attendedsysupgrade. It took the installed packages and my settings and made an upgraded image on the other partition. Stable so far.
I enabled packet steering...and it seems as if WiFi speed tests are more consistent. And now as good as my WRT3200 (running Davidc502 r13342)
As far as my WRT3200 vs WRT1900acs. It reboots faster and I haven't given up. I'll keep trying to get it to work. But for now I'm happy as heck to have a up to date stable build with decent WiFi.
Wonder if I should dig my WRT1200 out of the closet and upgrade it? LOL
After lot of fighting with my ISP, they came and made some checks on my ftth 1gb line.
All was good ISP side, and with the ISP's modem and the ISP's notebook they made some speed tests with results over 800 mbps download speed. Using my 1900acs they weren't able to get past ~300/400 Mbps, even with the stock firmware we had same results.
The connections is, sadly, made with ppoe
I can't get what's going wrong with my linksys.
[OT]
Beginning to think about moving to a x86_64, wich could also get me ready for the switch to a 2,5g/500m line.
But I'm totally noob about this and dunno what should I aim to, in terms of hardware and software, considering European market availability and affordability.
[/OT]
Have you tried a few tweaks - disable QoS, packet steering, software flow offloading, etc? Sad if this is the max throughput we can expect for a PPPoE connection with a mvebu on the latest builds...
1 Like
Thanks, i will look deeper
@wally_walrus
Sadly i had no mutch time to test. I don't live in that house yet, I will test deeply asa i'll be there definitely.
Now that i know the line and the ISP are not guilty for those low speeds, i will keep this line for now and will try to solve this on my side
Will keep you updated
I also have a 1900ACS and a Bell FTTH plan of 1.5 Gbps down / 940 Mbps up. The PPOE pass-through on this router give me an average max speed of 940 Mbps down / 930 Mbps up. A speed of 300 / 400 Mbps is not normal, you should get higher speed.
2 Likes
Hi blamaz and thanks for your reply.
I read about many of us using this model with a 1G+ plan, and getting at least 800 mbps in download.
That's why i want to fix it and i do not want to give up.
On other threads, many people is blaming me for using this router and a custom firmware, even if i explained them that other people (like you) are getting a decent speed using it and i used to get good speeds on an ipoe 1G line, now i have same poor results on the stock firmware also.
Did you have to set up VLANs on WAN port for the ISP connection?
Asking to understand if that could make the difference.
I can't believe that moving from a ipoe to a ppoe plan, and using a newer firmware, could let me drop from ~800/900 to ~300/400 mbps. It's a huge loss.
Anyway, looks like also my PC couldn't reach higer speeds, because using the ISP router and my PC gave me poor results while the test with the ISP PC went up to 834 Mbps.
Maybe we could compare our configs asa i'll be able to be there and make more tests?
Thanks again for your contribution
K.
No vlan needed, just PPOE pass-through.I've build my own basic Openwrt v21.02.3 firmware and only added a custom theme (luci-theme-argon) and AdGuard DNS that I run on an external USB drive connected to the router. I don't want to use the v22.03.0 as it's using firewall4 (nftables) and somes packages fail to work properly. We should not HIJACK this thread with this discussion.
1 Like