Need New DavidC502 Thread


#70

the new dnscrypt-proxy binary file is 6.39mb. there is an option to compress the file down to 1.67mb with upx. Link to Installation Instruction what is the best way to approach the big file size?


#71

Hi Everyone its been a while since I've used the Forum but I'm Back to ask for advice regarding which build to use,
I've been using David502 Custom Build for over a year as it was the recommended build at the time on the OpenWrt Forum and had very few problems with the WiFi. I understand the WiFi issues are completely fixed on the most recent builds?

Honestly I've had very few problems with the build, it's fairly stable and I've only had the occasion hiccup, however I understand a lot has changed over the last year and honestly I haven't kept up with what has changed.

I'm really a noob when it comes to which build to choose and really could do with the advice from more experienced people.

Is Davids build still a recommended build for relative stability and WiFi performance ?


#72

For all intents and purposes, all builds in the WRT AC Series wiki are stable and fine to use.

While the Development Branch has a Warning Wrap that the branch "should not be considered stable", this is only because it's built daily by BuildBot, so there is a chance some random commit could cause an issue.

  • With that being said, I've been running the Development Branch exclusively for the last 2 years across all 4 WRT AC Series routers I maintain and have never had an issue with instability.

  • The Warning Wrap has never been removed from the Development Branch because it's common knowledge Linux distro Development Branches [aka "Trunk"] should never be considered 100% stable, however this does not mean any one is unstable on any arbitrary day.

#73

it shows how long I've been out the loop I didn't realise that the AC series have been focused in to only 3 available builds , Stable , Development and Davids build . This simplifies things, which is good. It would appear that Davids build is still the Best build for me, development build with added customisation.

Thanks for your help @JW0914


#74

@Linuxmarvel It's not so much that it's been focused down to three builds, but that the only user who's maintained a working repo, willing to troubleshoot issues in their builds if anything goes wrong, is @davidc502 (of the original three that were listed).

  • We used to have 3 users who offered complete 3rd party builds, however one simply disappeared ~2yrs ago, and after ~6 months of no updates to their repo, their section was removed as it was no longer maintained.

  • The other user @arokh (OpenWrt forum) was gone for ~1yr, and upon returning to the forum (before it crashed), stated he was no longer going to be creating community builds.
    • His section is still in the wiki under 3rd party builds, however I removed the image links and added a warning wrap, as users will find the config files in his builds of interest since he offered a complete OOBE image... One of the most highly customized builds I've ever come across.

  • I believe @hnyman and @stangri may offer custom build repos, but can't recall for sure.

  • @sera (OpenWrt forum) worked on custom kernels for the Series, however I'm not sure if they ever came over to the LEDE forum.

The Third Party Builds section was mainly an effort to consolidate disparate info of trusted users/devs who maintained their own repos, in an effort to ensure users knew which ones the community trusted.

I personally recommend WRT AC Series users compile their own firmware if they want a customized image, as then one can choose the exact packages they want installed and have their own configs built into the compiled image.

  • A simple VM solution like VirtualBox is all one needs to create a Linux VM
    • I personally prefer Ubuntu and created a script a while back to automate the entire buildroot setup and image compile process

#75

arokh is here with a build, but under the guise of a new moniker


#76

Flashed to r6952, switched "option igdv1" to 1 and rebooted. However, it did not have an effect, as I have tested it in game and received NAT Type strict. Using my older setup results in NAT Type open. Also flashed to DD-WRT briefly, and had no NAT problems.

Also, r6952 rebooted the router on it's own. Fresh flash and only changed the upnpd.config. Anything after r6565 causes my WRT1200ACv2 to reboot.


#77

Awesome =] His builds really are some of the most highly customized builds I've ever come across, intended to offer the end user a complete OOBE.

I'll work on getting his info updated in the wiki over the next days then.


#78

Well, I have compiled every now and then a test build for WRT3200ACM for the CPU frequency scaling feature, but I have kept that build rather low-key (although it is quite stable up-to-date build with full source of the changes made):



#79

Very cool hnyman. Would be great to see this incorporated into Master or 18.06 for the range of WRT devices up to the WRT3200ACM / WRT32X. Would help optimize heat / power consumption / SoC lifespan.

Would be great to see radio power output scaling someday too, but I know that's unlikely. I've heard it's pegged at 100mW in OpenWrt due to drivers, which is absurd. I run my R7800 RF on low because I have smaller place.


#80

This will never change on any device manufactured for US from mid-2017 forward, due to FCC regulations that limit the transmitting power of the radios.

  • On top of that, I'd be concerned about going over 100mW consistently on any device, as doing so can shorten the lifespan of the PCB and it's components due to the excess heat.
    • The only way I'd feel comfortable doing this would be with a custom fan(s) installed into the router's housing.

#81

Yea I don't want to be able to raise power output, I want to be able to lower it. 100mW is way too much for fixed. My R7000 had it at 25mW for years with plenty of signal at my place.


#82

Where did you hear it was set to 100mw by default?

  • The FCC ruling prevents users with routers manufactured after mid 2017 from changing the transmitting power.
    • Unless something has changed, there is no way to bypass this and set the radios to the max 100mW for transmitting, as it's hard coded for a specific value, and while I can't recall what that value is, it's not 100mW.

#83

Where did you hear it was set to 100mw by default?

The FCC ruling prevents users with routers manufactured after mid 2017 from changing the transmitting power.
Unless something has changed, there is no way to bypass this and set the radios to the max 100mW for transmitting, as it’s hard coded for a specific value, and while I can’t recall what that value is, it’s not 100mW.

It's actually 1 watt (1000mw) https://www.air802.com/fcc-rules-and-regulations.html


#84

There's no dates listed as to when that was last updated, and 1W was the previous bar prior to the new regulations that took effect in 2017. Most, if not all, routers manufactured for the US after the regulation took effect have non-customizable power transmit values that are hard coded.

  • There's at least one thread on this forum that discusses this (in relation to the WRT AC Series).
    • Devices known to be affected: WRT1900ACS v2, WRT3200ACM v2, likely the WRT32X

#85

It varies by channel:

I recall reading that the manufacturers had to lock it down. The options were to stay propitiatory so than open source software couldn't be used, or store the settings in ROM.


#86

The copyright is listed as 2006-2018. That would be the last time it was edited, which makes it as old as 01/01/2018.


#87

Not that this really matters now, but here is some history as to why the FCC did the lock down. We had, and still do have, community members that purposefully take wifi power levels outside of approved specifications.

As someone who maintains a FCC radio certification, the FCC take this very seriously, and it doesn't surprise me that they took action.


#88

That's the site's copyright, not that page's... You are aware private citizens cannot copyright information put forth by a governmental agency, such as the FCC, right?


#89

You be you, friend. I'm out of this.