Snapshots are essentially the same although I would highly advice people not to use -O3 as "global" optimization flags as it will more than likely break things.
1 Like
Does this build have a solution for the ath10k and dynamic vlan issue ?
If anyone was searching for ath10k to work with dynamic vlans, please let us know that you are affected in the following post:
We need your support to make this issue known.
Thanks,
Hernán.-
@diizzy, you probably are right. I found that @shunjou's build uses ath10k firmware, while the nightly uses ath10k-ct I believe.
Is it probable that WiFi is not stable with the nightly only because the firmware difference? And how am I supposed to replace ath10k-ct with ath10k?
There is also ath10k-firmware-qca988x-ct-htt which you could try.
To switch use:
opkg remove NAME-OF-YOUR-CURRENTLY-INSTALLED-FW
opkg install NAME-OF-THE-FW-YOU-WANT-TO-SWITCH-TO
There's sw_offloading issue with the official nightly build, the speed test will not achieve as much as 600Mbps as the community build does.
Is something affecting only Archer C7 v2, or it's general "bug" afecting all platforms?
Anybody know if @shunjou will work with wireguard? Having some trouble and seeing that the kernel version isn't compatible.
Hi i got 2 qeustions,
Wich one should i use from factory tplink firmware?
openwrt-ar71xx-generic-archer-c7-v2-squashfs-factory.bin
or the EU version? Im in the Netherlands 
strong text
And how to maximise the WiFi performance?
i got 300/300 mbps from my ISP.
If i install this firmware do i need to setup extra settings after flashing the device except the password and wireless ssid etc.
Setup:
Router with NAT needed as DHCP server.
Hey new member,
try the eu version first and if your device doesn't accept this one then use the us factory...
The images only differ in some headers as the us version does require some other values to accept the factory image from the upgrade page from vendor web gui.
You don't need to setup anything apart from admin password, wireless key and pppoe if needed.
Works out of the box.
Greets
Okee thanks juppin ill try but ill fear for losing 50% of my WiFi up/down speed
The ath10k{,-ct} firmware doesn't communicate back the actual bitrate to userspace, that's just a cosmetic issue. In case the wireless link isn't actually in use, the rate control algorithm also reverts back to low rates - which are only ramped up while the connection is actually in use.
even when doing a speedtest its not going up, my download speed is wireless 200mbits and 300+ upload speed... I like openwrt but its sacrificing so much download speed 
Wired its all good, i got no interference with neighbours sinds im the only one with 5Ghz here.
What I'm saying is, don't look at the reading (because it's bogus) - measure how much throughput you actually get on your clients.
I have the same wireless as the c7-v2 in my BT Business Hub 5 Type A and wireless performance is pretty impressive.
I mensuren with 2 win 10 laptop devices and my iPhone. It just doesnt get the down/up as the stock or close it is a difference of 30% xD wich firmware ill install no matter what. Thinking of switching to netgear x4s r 7800 to test the difference... just need to find good openwrt build
Wan to lan is perfect getting above my isp rates
I've upgraded to this build and it massively slowed down WiFi speed.
I've had a previous build that reached 400-500mbps, this one tops at 150mbps.
Going to reflash to older version if I can find it (afaik it's r7066-060e1ecefa so basically infinitnet's build).
Fuck this. Installed Infininet's latest build and that got device on infinite loop rebooting... Ughhh.
Same with build from lede home page - slow as molasses.
Edit:
Turns out it can get even worse. One of the build barely could load speedtest.com... Really baffled by this experience.
In the end I've used this same build, but with my previous config (luckily I've saved it), just removed old wireless settings as otherwise I could use only one wifi client per router...
It's still only 150-200mbps instead of 400-500mbps.
Not sure whether I should be disappointed of this build or where OpenWRT is going, but here it is...