You don't necessarily need a real Gigabit provider line to test the NAT speeds as it might be hard to organize a saturation from the real Internet and test full-duplex with it.
An alternative setup would be 2 PCs, each with a Gigabit Ethernet port (all modern hardware has them). The "server" PC, connected to the WAN port of the router, will need to run a DHCP server and iperf in the server mode, and the "client" PC, connected to one of the LAN ports, will run the client mode of iperf. The DHCP server on the server PC will need to be configured to provide an IP from a different subnet than router's own LAN. Afterwards tests can be done iin both directions (half- or full-duplex). The easiest way to organize this is to boot a live Linux distro on both PCs.
I understand your post. I also know how to test without an actual gigabit internet connection. I'm just making a point that use cases may affect performance differently. If I'm never stressing my wired or wireless enough I'm likely to claim that it is stable. Conversely, if I'm constantly pushing maximum throughput through all my interfaces, I'm more likely to see bottlenecks/crashes that arent visible to others.
By default, yes, only some 19 MB is available after flashing the router: to preserve the possibility to revert back into a fully functional Netgear OEM, the LEDE firmware is only stored to the 30 MB "ubi" partition and the 70 MB "Netgear" partition is left intact and marked read-only..
But you can compile an image that uses a larger portion of the flash:
Is this still a case?
I'm looking for a new router for 250/20 Mb/s connection to use with SQM layer_cake. I'm considering the Netgear R7800 but those new information are making me want to reject this device. Can anyone clear this up for me, please?
Could someone please run iperf3 as a client from a router? I experience strange behavior - throughout is 10-15 mbits. When iperf3 is ran as a server on r7800, then throughput is 850-900 mbits (guess it's my pc nics top)
@Nague: Are you sure IGMP snooping worked correctly also for IGMPv2? My testing indicates that it does not, and I am really frustrated at the moment. I made a post about it here, but the rundown is that with IGMP snooping enabled, the switch drops all IGMP query messages.
What this means, is that a client may send a report/join message to a server, and start receiving the stream, but when the server (after some timeout) sends a query to see if the client still wants to receive the stream, the query is dropped on ingress, so the client never gets it. Thus the server never gets a response to the query, and stops the stream.
@dissent1: I've been thinking about testing a little bit with the new DSA driver, but I'm having a hard time finding proper documentation as to how I'd set whether a port is a tagged or untagged member of a VLAN, and also how to set the default VLAN? Do you use VLANs in your setup? The old switch UCI config is not adjusted for this driver, is it? If it is, then this question is irrelevant, of course. When it comes to IGMP snooping, it seems that the only setup for that is for a bridge, so if IGMP snooping is set for br-lan, then the driver should automatically set the proper switch config for that?
Here's how you set vlans, screenshot of br-lan -> physical settings
Yes that's correct, in theory. By design the driver propagates kernel settings into the switch, so it behaves like each port is a real NIC. But as I get it it's more like multicast offloading, so multicast forwarding is done within the switch.
I'm not entirely clear what is set in that screenshot. All the ticked interfaces are bridged, and the custom interface belongs to VLAN 3 on port lan1? So incoming packets on lan 1 with VLAN id 3 is then forwarded (untagged) within the bridge? What about egress? How do you set whether a interface is a tagged or an untagged member of a VLAN?
On that screenshot - lan port 1 is tagged with vid 3, lan 2-4 are untagged, you can combine whatever you want.
A port cant be untagged member of vlan - it's wether a member of vlan and tagged or untagged completely there's no 3rd option. What you have seen with luci switch before where you can set cpu and port tagged independently - is somewhat excessive configuration, or misconfiguration if you call it.
If you want to tag a port you add .vid to it i.e. lan1.3 or 'wan.8' etc. you can add as many vids to a single port as you want and bridge em together, route or send to the moon (not really).
Yes, exactly, and they all are bridged together - can communicate with each other
All the packets that are destined to lan port 1 in that configuration are tagged with vid 3, that's pretty simple
edit: forgot to mention - after you fill custom interface field with custom interface you it apply and it's added to the list above it