E8450/RT3200 gigabit speeds tweaking?

Well, I really hope this fix in the mt76 driver goes into the first stable release for this device, it will have to go first into the master.
I have been struggling with the R7800 to have gigabit throughput, and the E8450 does it straight out of the box without heavy CPU load and without getting as hot as other devices. However, the CPU throttling still has to be added manually. It should be implemented as default for this device.

2 Likes

How're you getting 1gbps?

This is with CAKE enabled, layer cake and set to 500/50: https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=ea7df2ef-b2c3-40b8-89f5-56e0247b3327

IRQ is installed. I set the governor as advised above to sched.
If I try fq_codel, the speeds are okayish for a 1gbps line but the latency can hit over +100

Am I doing something wrong?

Firmware Version OpenWrt SNAPSHOT r19043-c2d7896a65 / LuCI Master git-22.058.70382-d29400e

1 Like

@JimmyValentine What's your latency like with fq_codel?

using very basic settings with fq_codel and simple.qos (900 download/45 upload) I get this:

I think I might be able to get the bufferbloat fluctuations even more tamed if I start messing with some settings or just reduce more the bandwidth. But for now, it does the job.

1 Like

The CPU in Belkin RT3200/Linksys E8450 routers cannot handle more than 450-500MB if you use CAKE as the queue discipline.

If you want more performance than these routers offer when you use CAKE (in SQM or Qosify), then build an x86 router and also OpenWrt recommends an x86 router if your bandwidth is greater than 500MB.

Between 100 to 200 dollars you get a good refurbished PC x86 or mini PC x86 that can work as a router (you can ask in the forum for any recommendation) and use a pair of Belkin RT3200 routers as access points.

For me the most important thing about an x86 router is that the CPU is from Intel and that it has an Intel NIC (because Intel is one of the companies that contributes most to the Linux Kernel) or you can buy a used Intel NIC on eBay, but it has to be GENUINE/ORIGINAL and you have to be careful if they want to scam you by selling you a FAKE/Chinese copy:

Intel NIC Genuine vs Fake:

2 Likes

Can you upload your settings please?

I am getting 938 Mbps:

Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-28.65  sec   533 MBytes   156 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[  6]   0.00-28.65  sec   518 MBytes   152 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  6]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[  8]   0.00-28.65  sec   307 MBytes  89.9 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  8]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 10]   0.00-28.65  sec   287 MBytes  84.0 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 10]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 12]   0.00-28.65  sec   269 MBytes  78.9 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 12]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 14]   0.00-28.65  sec   248 MBytes  72.5 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 14]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 16]   0.00-28.65  sec   258 MBytes  75.5 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 16]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 18]   0.00-28.65  sec   274 MBytes  80.4 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 18]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 20]   0.00-28.65  sec   225 MBytes  65.8 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 20]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[ 22]   0.00-28.65  sec   286 MBytes  83.8 Mbits/sec                  sender
[ 22]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
[SUM]   0.00-28.65  sec  3.13 GBytes   938 Mbits/sec                  sender
[SUM]   0.00-28.65  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver

I am using quite a synthetic method to see the highest throughput. I am using iperf3 sending 10 parallel data streams from an iperf3 server in WAN and a Windows 11 laptop connected wirelessly using 160MHz channel. While I am listening to online radio with low buffer in another PC connected to the E8450 wirelessly too. This is pretty much the performance out of the box, as I am not yed decided on what SSL to use and I am testing performance with different sets. The test was done using openssl, but I am getting the same results using wolfssl.

This is the list of custom packages I used in imagebuilder:
nano-plus htop ncdu iperf3 irqbalance auc ca-certificates -wpad-basic-wolfssl wpad-wolfssl openvpn-wolfssl luci-ssl -wpad-basic-wolfssl -libustream-wolfssl -px5g-wolfssl wpad-openssl libustream-openssl luci-ssl-openssl luci luci-compat luci-mod-dashboard luci-app-attendedsysupgrade luci-app-vnstat2 luci-app-nlbwmon luci-app-adblock luci-app-banip luci-app-bcp38 luci-app-commands luci-app-ddns ddns-scripts-noip luci-app-openvpn -luci-ssl-openssl luci-app-sqm luci-app-wireguard luci-app-upnp luci-app-uhttpd luci-app-statistics collectd-mod-conntrack collectd-mod-cpu collectd-mod-cpufreq collectd-mod-dhcpleases collectd-mod-entropy collectd-mod-exec collectd-mod-interface collectd-mod-iwinfo collectd-mod-load collectd-mod-memory collectd-mod-network collectd-mod-ping collectd-mod-rrdtool collectd-mod-sqm collectd-mod-thermal collectd-mod-uptime collectd-mod-wireless blockd cryptsetup e2fsprogs f2fs-tools kmod-fs-exfat kmod-fs-ext4 kmod-fs-f2fs kmod-fs-hfs kmod-fs-hfsplus kmod-fs-msdos kmod-fs-nfs kmod-fs-nfs-common kmod-fs-nfs-v3 kmod-fs-nfs-v4 kmod-fs-vfat kmod-nls-base kmod-nls-cp1250 kmod-nls-cp437 kmod-nls-cp850 kmod-nls-iso8859-1 kmod-nls-iso8859-15 kmod-nls-utf8 kmod-usb-storage kmod-usb-storage-uas libblkid ntfs-3g nfs-utils ip6tables-mod-nat 6in4 6rd 6to4 ip6tables-nft

If you can't buy an x86 router to show you 1GB of speed on Speedtest when you're using CAKE, then why don't you limit your bandwidth to 400MB or 500MB and live happy?

I don't understand the urgency that you have in trying to get 1GB when most of the time or 99% of the time, you will NEVER use that speed, because you will only see it in Speedtest.

You have these two choices until you buy an x86 router:

  1. Get more speed using the old and obsolete qdisc "fq_codel".
  2. Use the new and better qdisc "CAKE" (but you have to limit your bandwidth to half because the router CPU can't handle that speed) and completely FIX the bufferbloat and you can also prioritize your important traffic using the new Qosify package.

P.S. If you use packages for traffic shaping (QoS, SQM, Qosify, etc.), I recommend that you NEVER use "Software flow offloading" or "Hardware flow offloading" options to try to get more performance because it comes with drawbacks and if you want more performance, then build an x86 router.

8 Likes

@YesNO please think through the superb and carefully crafted advice by @elan above, which will have taken time to put together.

2 Likes

How would that change if I throw a VPN in the mix? If I try to maximize OpenVPN (client) or Wireguard speed on this router, should I enable flow offloading?

1 Like

fq_codel isn't that "obsolete" that it requires bolding (especially in this context).

Although cake is hyped here, it is not perfect for all situations, as it may try a bit too much classification and is thus too CPU intensive as the highest speeds, as you implicate.

For Gigabit speeds the SQM simple.qos/fq-codel (or simplest.qos) may offer the needed QoS but be much lighter for the CPU.

Fully agree with that :slight_smile:
The measured top speed is pretty irrelevant for most users, as the real-life internet traffic will never reach that except for really short bursts (or the speedtests).

4 Likes

I don't know if offloading options improves the speed when you are using VPN on the router, but I think the speed depends more on the encryption protocol you are using.

This answer has nothing to do with VPN:
If you're not using any packages for traffic shaping (QoS, SQM, Qosify, etc.) and you just want to try to get more speed or bandwidth because the router CPU makes a bottleneck due to lack of performance, you can try the offloading options.

This is why fq_codel is obsolete:

  1. CAKE is easy to configure.
  2. CAKE fixes the bufferbloat better than fq_codel.
  3. CAKE already has categories to prioritize traffic by default. (Use Qosify to use this feature)
  4. CAKE equally divides bandwidth with all devices.
  5. CAKE has an interface that shows all information and is easy to understand.

CAKE is one level higher than fq_codel.

It's not CAKE fault that people buy a router that can't handle 1GB speeds.

If you have 1GB of bandwidth and you want to use CAKE as queue discipline, you must have a good x86 router according to that bandwidth, switches and access points so you don't have problems and you don't end up blaming OpenWrt or CAKE because your router can't handle 1GB.

Lol, nah. I've just paid £90 for this after people saying this is the recommended router to get on IRC. it's crap, can't reach anywhere near 1gbps speeds and the latency is a joke!

Because you are demanding more than the CPU can offer.

If you use CAKE on SQM or Qosify, please reduce your bandwidth to 400MB or buy an x86 router so it can handle that speed and fix your problem.

2 Likes

So one of cake's goals was to make setting up competent AQM for novice users simple (reducing the need and complexity of set-up scripts like sqm-script), IMHO it mostly suceeded.
The other big goal however was reducing the CPU cycle cost of the often required traffic shaper, and that part did not suceed, in the end cake is even more CPU hungry than HTB+fq_codel, in fairness it also does more. But doing more is not helpful when CPU cycles are scarce

As it stands neither is obsolete and as clear a win over the other as fq_codel was over single queue codel.

4 Likes

@elan
is this a good candidate ? X86 and 2.5gbps ports, intel i225 nics.

1 Like

No. Quote ALL of what I said, not just a bit.
People over on Reddit and IRC are recommending this router. I have no idea why, you can't reach 1gbps with it and even if you use fq_codel, your latency is crap!

I might as well go back to my old router, at least I could hit 1gbps with it. lmao

1 Like

This is WITHOUT the CAKE script running so NO fq_codel: https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=cf9da65d-5e2b-4202-bfab-b4a12d2ae7c1

What a joke of a system!!!!!!

can you try to do your test on https://fast.com/ ?

1 Like