Yes please add whw01 build, I volunteer to be your QA tester 
I've successfully flashed my WHW01 device and logged into openwrt.
Since I have not been using openwrt for a while, will take me some time to get familliar with the configuration etc.
1 Like
I much prefer "ethX" as @Borromini mentioned! Neither port is WAN in the stock FW so arbitrarily numbering them shouldn't be an issue.
Basic testing done, no obvious issue found, lan/wan/wifi all seems to be working well.
Kudos~~~~
Now I can have a lot of fun with the retired velop
1 Like
@Nyshan Yes, I agree "ethX" is better. I'll make this change and add the commits to my PR re-enabling this family of devices. I think this is equivalent to what you already tested, since the label name change and swapping switch ports really shouldn't affect anything. Sound reasonable, or would you like to test further? If you're OK with all this, please PM me your real name and email to add a "Signed-off-by:" and "Tested-by:".
@maxdad Thanks for doing basic testing! Please continue poking around in case you spot something. As above, if you PM me your details I'll add your "Tested-by:" if you agree.
2 Likes
Yes I have done poking around router mode, now playing with wireless bridge mode.
I had to manually install the luci-proto-relay package from here and install, somehow it did not show up in the opkg list, but I guess it has nothing to do with this patch.
Wireless client bridge works fine, next I will try WDS and 802.11r dropless relay.
So far so good.
1 Like
Right, this build includes all kernel modules (which need to match kernel exactly) but only some userspace modules, otherwise the build would be huge and time-consuming. As you discovered, the userspace stuff can be manually installed from OpenWrt snapshot repos.
Sounds good! When you're happy with things, send me your details and I'll include in the commit.
Guys I found an interesting 'performance issue', believe it is not related to this patch, but wonder whether I am missing anything.
In client bridge mode, when I run iperf3 directly from the WHW01, I get close to 400Mbps, but on the PC behind it, I am only getting around or even less than half speed.
from the WHW01 openwrt shell
[ 5] local 192.168.2.113 port 47968 connected to 192.168.2.1 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
[ 5] 0.00-1.03 sec 41.0 MBytes 335 Mbits/sec 0 806 KBytes
[ 5] 1.03-2.01 sec 43.9 MBytes 374 Mbits/sec 0 1.04 MBytes
[ 5] 2.01-3.00 sec 41.8 MBytes 353 Mbits/sec 0 1.52 MBytes
[ 5] 3.00-4.02 sec 45.0 MBytes 372 Mbits/sec 0 1.53 MBytes
[ 5] 4.02-5.02 sec 45.0 MBytes 377 Mbits/sec 0 1.53 MBytes
[ 5] 5.02-6.02 sec 42.8 MBytes 360 Mbits/sec 0 1.53 MBytes
[ 5] 6.02-7.02 sec 45.0 MBytes 375 Mbits/sec 0 1.53 MBytes
From PC behind the client bridge:
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 20.6 MBytes 173 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.01 sec 19.5 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.01-4.00 sec 16.9 MBytes 142 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 23.5 MBytes 197 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 22.0 MBytes 185 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 17.5 MBytes 147 Mbits/sec
Is it expected loss due to the extra relay layer? Maybe the CPU is too weak on the velop?
Really need more details. Is this WDS or not? Is upstream iperf on your main AP? How do you connect your PC to client station?
If you're connecting PC over wireless, seeing 1/2 bandwidth drop not surprising. If you're wired... strange. Perhaps try iperf directly over wired between PC and client to set a baseline.
Also try booting client WHW01 to other partition (running OWRT 22.03?) and re-measure things. That would be a nice A/B check comparing FW installs and configurations.
That's it off the top of my head...
You may want to move this to a different forum post as this one will close in a few days now that I've marked a solution.
Guys I created this thread for continued dicsussion around testing and issues:
This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.