Next router? ath10k or mwlwifi based? something else?

setting HZ=1000 means that you have a much finer granularity of schedulers and packet handling. I'm pretty sure that Cerowrt sets this by default and I know it's the recommended setting in FreeBSD (and default nowdays).

Thanks to dlizzy (in the other thread) I've decided to get NBG6817 because I found it for a very interesting price over here. 169$. it is way cheaper than r7800 here and since they have the same hardware that was an easy choice :slight_smile:

I just didn't quite understand the flashing procedure for NBG6817.
it say:
For installation copy xx-mmcblk0p4-kernel.bin and xx-mmcblk0p5-rootfs-full.bin
to device. Then run:
cat xx-mmcblk0p4-kernel.bin > /dev/mmc0blk0p4
cat xx-mmcblk0p5-rootfs-full.bin > /dev/mmc0blk0p5
reboot -f

do i normally SSH to it or what do I miss here? and how to revert it back to factory if I will need it?
Thank you in advance.

Doesn't the Ath10K require closed firmware blob as well? Are Ath10K and mwlwifi THAT different with respect to openness. Neither has the openess of Ath9K.

1 Like

[quote="okji, post:43, topic:80"]
Doesn't the Ath10K require closed firmware blob as well? Are Ath10K and mwlwifi THAT different with respect to openness. Neither has the openess of Ath9K.
[/quote]yep, ath10k includes a firmware blob as well. Neither is as fully open as ath9k.

But to my knowledge ath10k driver itself is being developed more openly by the community (in ) than the mwlwifi driver that seems to be developed by a few guys at Marvell. At least that is my impression from the commits in

Anybody think it is a good idea to avoid buying Ath10K and mwlwifi devices for now considering Ath9K is all that is going to receive support from the make-wifi fast initiative? I've had nothing but solid Ath9K performance and I'm wondering if there's anything to be gained by moving to Ath10K or mwlwifi if Ath9K is only going to improve in performance.

Ath9k is 802.1an only of course... If you want 802.11ac, Mediatek with mt76 is the most open 802.11ac hardware/driver combination around. There a few Mediatek devices that work nicely. I have an AC1300 D-Link DIR-860L rev B1 myself, e.g.

Seconded + it is cheap too! Bought mine for €55,- which imho is a bargain.

Looks like a fun device :slight_smile:

.> .. I have an AC1300 D-Link DIR-860L rev B1 myself, e.g.

@Borromini, Would you mind sharing a recent performance figure? I need a new router to replace my single core 400Mhz Buffalo as a VPN server. I found that my slow VPN speed is limited by the processor speed. Do you have any comment about its speed?

Thanks @diizzy

How fast is the mediatek CPU that is used in the dir-860l B1? What kind of LAN <-> WAN speeds is it able to get with traffic shaping (piece of cake) enabled? I am currently running a 200/40 Mbit internet connection and the Archer C7 I am using is showing a lack of CPU power in those cases.

@diizzy Are you able to test that? I only have 50/8.

No, I don't have it installed on my faster connections as it's pointless.

This is what I found. It seems to push almost a full gbps through NAT. Samba is fast too.

Running exactly what?

I'm wondering this myself. It's not a surprise that some devices with slower CPUs can get full or near full gigabit speed through NAT on the original firmware.

As he wrote the it was on OpenWRT.

I can confirm the above tests. Running iperf3 between a PC connected to the WAN side and another PC connected to the LAN side I can push gigabit (940+ Mbit/s) speeds in either direction. And it seems like this little monster has power left over while doing so. CPU idle % is at 42-47%, with sirq taking up the non-idle processing power. I recorded this cpu usage while running iperf for 2 minutes, as to get an accurate and settled in CPU usage reading.

Next, I repeated the same tests with SQM enabled on the WAN interface with a limit of 1 Gbit/s. Running cake, I was able to push 400 Mbit/s WAN -> LAN and 600 Mbit/s LAN -> WAN. Unfortunately, I ran into quite a few crashes while doing so. This is a known issue with cake running on mediatek SOCs.

Doing the same tests with fq_codel, everything was rock solid stable. What surprised me though, was that fq_codel was able to perform way better. It was pushing 700-800 Mbit/s WAN <-> LAN with little differences in either direction. I even tried to set SQM to 200 Mbit to confirm that it was actually working, and as expected, I was now only doing 200 Mbit/s, so the shaping was definitely working.

The bottom line is: I can very much recommend this little beast if you are interested in routing high-speed connections through LEDE without breaking the bank with 150-200 dollar routers.