No, I’m only talking about wireless. Your ISP may deliver 1 Gbps to you, but there’s basically no way you can send that over 802.11ac. Which, by the way, is simplex, so if you’ve flooded it in one direction, you don’t get anything in the other. Even your own ACK packets (“I got the last packet, keep sending”) count against the time slices.
2 Likes
I am in the States, and my ISP promises 1 Gbps. The ISP's web forum is full of people asking why they aren't getting 1 Gbps over wireless, no matter how many times it's pointed out that such speeds can currently be attained only over a wired connection, because in this day and age, the idea of using wires instead of wireless leaves a foul taste in most people's mouths. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it too.
4 Likes
Don't know if you have been getting lots of 5G coverage in the News in the States but here in the UK it doesn't help by them reporting that we can expect Gbps speeds for both Mobile and Rural Area internet Connections without cable or Satellite...
People are expecting more than 500Mbps. 
1 Like
I have ESPRESSObin v5 and v7 units working with OpenWRT; the v5 is running a 500mbit symmetrical just fine. For WiFi, better off finding an 802.11ax access point, or router in non-routing mode.
Edgerouter X should do it if you enable hardware offloading. But no SQM if you go that route.
I am using it with a Unifi access point also running openwrt (snapshot ath79 branch).
1 Like
It depends on switch. For example QCA8337N has hardware NAT functionality, the bandwidth of such switch could reach full gigabit. And you are talking about throughput, it become complicated when data is measured through WIFI endpoint.
Hardware makes no difference if OpenWrt can't keep up with stock firmware throughput.
IPQ40xx on stock firmware can easily do 800/900Mbps all day long on large 4.7GB iso files
IPQ40xx on OpenWrt (after an initial burst of speed) you'll be lucky to stay above 200mbps on a large downloads.
1 Like
Again, hello flow offload. Nothing but the HNAT and switch are touching the packets at 800-900 mbps. BFD.
I must be “lucky” because I get nowhere near the craptastic 200 mbps you claim the device is limited to. The problem is more likely your setup or test methods.
You really should re-examine your methods and claims. At the very least, you should provide your test conditions and results.
Edit -- 100 second run, iperf3, router to server, IPQ4019 in EA8300, Ethernet theoretical limit ~940 Mbps:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-100.00 sec 11.0 GBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-100.04 sec 11.0 GBytes 941 Mbits/sec receiver
1 Like
LOL , Try downloading a dual layer 9GB ISO from the internet as a real life test on a high speed internet account and swap between stock and and openwrt instead of keep posting fake bench results of iperf?
Archer C7 v2 single core on stock firmware runs circles around a EA6350 quad core running openwrt for throughput.
1 Like
brave heart
1 Like
None of my results are "fake".
I would start looking at why your configuration and/or your ISP and/or your upstream content servers are causing your problems. I seriously doubt that it is OpenWrt on the ipq40xx platform that is limiting you.
9 GB, dual-layer ISOs delivered by HTTP seem to be rather difficult to find. Major OS distros seem to limit their sizes to 3-4 GB and DVD-sized images seem to often only be distributed by BitTorrent.
But since you insist, here's performance of an IPQ4019 (EA8300) connected to the upstream server over a gigabit link to the WAN port, being fetched by a client of the LAN side of the OpenWrt router. NAT and standard OpenWrt firewalling is in effect. No "flow-offload" or other similar features have been enabled.
As you can see, wget shows the throughput to be ~880 Mbps.
IPQ40xx on
stockOpenWrt firmware can easily do 800/900Mbps all day long on large 4.7GB iso files
$ wget -O /dev/null http://10.0.0.2/pgdvd042010.iso
--2019-08-22 11:01:54-- http://10.0.0.2/pgdvd042010.iso
Connecting to 10.0.0.2:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 8358395904 (7.8G) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: ‘/dev/null’
/dev/null 100%[======================================================================================>] 7.78G 110MB/s in 73s
2019-08-22 11:03:07 (110 MB/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [8358395904/8358395904]
For reference, a direct connection yielded the same result
2019-08-22 11:17:41 (110 MB/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [8358395904/8358395904]
There was no measurable degradation (>1%) in throughput due to the insertion of the OpenWrt router in the path.
Edit: Re-ran based on suggestion to specify --report-speed=bits
OpenWrt: 920 Mbps
Wire: 927 Mbps
Still less than 1% difference
4 Likes
[TANGENT]
For these kind of measurements wget's --report-speed=bits option is quite nice in that it reports the transfer speed in bits instead of Bytes.
[/TANGENT]
1 Like
Add support for Linksys EA6350 v3
User 4C696E6B737973575254 180 Down /8 Up.
User DreamAddict This is with Ethernet or Wifi. The speeds for both are also very poor. It doesn't seem steady or to be able to exceed 150mpbs.
Just a couple , but as long as your getting close to full speed we all must be wrong.
It would be a lot better if you could link to the posts that contain that information instead of just listing the affected users.
https://forum.openwrt.org/t/add-support-for-linksys-ea6350-v3/18907/327?u=moeller0
"My 300 Down /12 Up line with SQM enable (cake and piece of cake) get 180 Down /8 Up."
@jeff is testing with NAT and firewall (but without PPPoE and SQM), I see no issue reconciling these data points. About @DreamAddict I am unsure since his issue is not described verbosely enough, but he gets ~349 Mbps LAN to USB-dongle on laptop (many USB dongles are crap and USB2 top out at a gross rate of 480 Mbps anyway), 63.2 Mbps on 2.4GHz radio and 2,5 Mbps on 5GHz radio, since we do not know about his RF environment and number of overlapping users of the different frequency bands (let alone the capability of his laptop) this sounds about what you can expect in real life.
I am sorry, I feel your pain and lack of satisfaction with OpenWrt on your router, but insulting other users here that are actively trying to help seems counter-productive to improve your situation, no?
User DreamAddict This is with Ethernet or Wifi.
Where is this imaginary insult that you're trying to stir and troll with?
edit
If you're referring to the fake results comment of Iperf then that was at the tool itself and not Jeff?
The internet has been full of people questioning the results of iperf for years as being false or fake in comparison to real life.
Please read what I wrote, "but he gets ~349 Mbps LAN to USB-dongle on laptop" that is what you call ethernet, but due to the USB-dongle involved I consider this not to be proof that the router is to blame (it also does not clear the router, but it makes this data point hard to interpret without more verbose description and tests)
Calling @jeff's iperf data fake is insulting in my book, I guess it was not intended that way.
2 Likes
Like any benchmarking tool, you have to know what iperf measures and how it measures it. Not iperf is questionable, but the interpretation of the results. The article you link even concedes that they misinterpreted the numbers before reading the iperf manual, but of course that doesn't make for a good clickbaity headline.
1 Like
Sorry, everybody has the "right" to make him/herself a fool on the internet, this is why one needs to take the internet's information (and opinions) with a grain of salt. But sure benchmarking is hard 
Had you taken the time to read that article, you would have seen
In particular, we observed that Iperf was significantly under reporting the actual bandwidth of the link.
The numbers reported by Iperf are not incorrect. Rather they are potentially misleading to those who do not realize that Iperf is measuring only transport level data and who expect that the result will be that raw bandwidth of the link, such as that advertised by ISPs or many consumer link speed test websites.
So your reference supports that the bandwidth measured by iperf is actually less that the underlying media. Note that my post of the iperf results indicated that the theoretical limit for throughput was ~940 Mbps, taking this into account already.
I'm also well aware that PPS (packets per second) is a more telling metric of router performance. However, for an audience that does not understand basic networking concepts, translating PPS performance into "Is it fast enough for my XXX Mbps line?" is challenging.
Further, comparison of the count of "problematic" responses on a support line or website against those of users reporting not having problems is not indicative of the issues with the unit. People who don't have problems don't generally take the time to write a post or make a call saying "Hey, your product works just like you said it would."
Finally, you somehow seemed to miss a post not far down from the ones you hand selected, from a user that I believe you respect, as I recall you asking them specific questions:
Well as long as you're all happy , you could have said to start with that your Linksys Router is the one to buy (for close to) 1Gbps internet throughput considering you get 900Mbps with openwrt.