JW0914 wrote:

iwrotecode wrote:

Interesting, however - this speed problem was also apparent on stock firmware, no QoS enabled. Out of the box, the WRT1900AC V2 on a gigabit connection is worthless (on wireless, speeds were ~25mbps u/d compared to ~950mbps u/d on cat5e).

For AC wifi, they should be in the mid 700s - mid 800s mbps range, with the ceiling being 867mbps.  Normally, my AC wifi runs in the ~720mbps - ~866mbps range

Haha, AC wifi speeds (on my gig connection) have been a MAJOR headache for me. Turns out that while the WRT1900AC is 3-stream, my desktop and laptop are only 2x2. Hence why I don't get anywhere near that wireless speed.

On my V1 WRT1900AC, I generally max out around 250mbps U/D on OpenWRT (sometimes it drops to around ~170mbps). Stock firmware is a bit faster around  430U 360D. Moving testing to the laptop, it's a bit slower but generally within 100mbps. Disappointing, but I don't have the option for Ethernet and can't upgrade the wireless capabilities on the specific desktop or laptop. AFAIK, the only laptop that supports a 3x3 stream is a Macbook Pro. Might pick one up one they get updated/redesigned.

iwrotecode wrote:

JW0914 wrote:

Could a workaround be using a swap partition?

I've got a 512mb flash drive running as swap via the USB2 port. I have never seen it use more than 1% of swap, even when under heavy data transfer from the USB3 HDD. The network will be unstable and whatnot, but the swap still is barely touched.

I wasn't sure if that would work or not, as I'm not well versed on how a swap partition is utilized on Linux, let alone OpenWRT, but figured it was worth throwing out there =]

JW0914 wrote:

iwrotecode wrote:

I've got a 512mb flash drive running as swap via the USB2 port. I have never seen it use more than 1% of swap, even when under heavy data transfer from the USB3 HDD. The network will be unstable and whatnot, but the swap still is barely touched.

I wasn't sure if that would work or not, as I'm not well versed on how a swap partition is utilized on Linux, let alone OpenWRT, but figured it was worth throwing out there =]

During testing no swap partition was created.. However, one could be set up tonight, and tested again?

iwrotecode wrote:

JW0914 wrote:

For AC wifi, they should be in the mid 700s - mid 800s mbps range, with the ceiling being 867mbps.  Normally, my AC wifi runs in the ~720mbps - ~866mbps range

Haha, AC wifi speeds (on my gig connection) have been a MAJOR headache for me. Turns out that while the WRT1900AC is 3-stream, my desktop and laptop are only 2x2. Hence why I don't get anywhere near that wireless speed.

On my V1 WRT1900AC, I generally max out around 250mbps U/D on OpenWRT (sometimes it drops to around ~170mbps). Stock firmware is a bit faster around  430U 360D. Moving testing to the laptop, it's a bit slower but generally within 100mbps. Disappointing, but I don't have the option for Ethernet and can't upgrade the wireless capabilities on the specific desktop or laptop. AFAIK, the only laptop that supports a 3x3 stream is a Macbook Pro. Might pick one up one they get updated/redesigned.

Unless your wifi chip is built directly into the motherboard (which isn't common), you should be able to upgrade it.  Intel's 7260ac pcie card (which also has BT 4.0 built in) is ~$35 new on ebay (which is where I got mine from).  The desktop version is similar in model number, but has a different number for one of the digits.  If you choose to buy one, make sure you know the type of port you have for the wifi card, then match that to the corresponding letter contained within the model number of the wifi card (I believe there's 4 possible letter combinations, with each designating a different port type).  If still unsure, search for pictures of the 4 different versions and compare each to the one you currently have installed.

EDIT
The 7260ac (and desktop equivalent) are both duals and still function at a max speed of 867mbps.  I also believe Intel may be the only one on the market with an ac card (they were at the beginning of the year).

Even with a 3x3 card, it's doubtful you'd hit a speed above 867mbps.  I would hazard a guess that you're current issues may result from settings [card] that may not be set to garnish the optimal speeds possible.

Also, you max out at ~250mbps - 300mbps range due to the cards being N, not AC.

JW0914 wrote:

iwrotecode wrote:

Haha, AC wifi speeds (on my gig connection) have been a MAJOR headache for me. Turns out that while the WRT1900AC is 3-stream, my desktop and laptop are only 2x2. Hence why I don't get anywhere near that wireless speed.

On my V1 WRT1900AC, I generally max out around 250mbps U/D on OpenWRT (sometimes it drops to around ~170mbps). Stock firmware is a bit faster around  430U 360D. Moving testing to the laptop, it's a bit slower but generally within 100mbps. Disappointing, but I don't have the option for Ethernet and can't upgrade the wireless capabilities on the specific desktop or laptop. AFAIK, the only laptop that supports a 3x3 stream is a Macbook Pro. Might pick one up one they get updated/redesigned.

Unless your wifi chip is built directly into the motherboard (which isn't common), you should be able to upgrade it.  Intel's 7260ac pcie card (which also has BT 4.0 built in) is ~$35 new on ebay (which is where I got mine from).  The desktop version is similar in model number, but has a different number for one of the digits.  If you choose to buy one, make sure you know the type of port you have for the wifi card, then match that to the corresponding letter contained within the model number of the wifi card (I believe there's 4 possible letter combinations, with each designating a different port type).  If still unsure, search for pictures of the 4 different versions and compare each to the one you currently have installed.

EDIT
The 7260ac (and desktop equivalent) are both duals and still function at a max speed of 867mbps.  I also believe Intel may be the only one on the market with an ac card (they were at the beginning of the year).

Even with a 3x3 card, it's doubtful you'd hit a speed above 867mbps.  I would hazard a guess that you're current issues may result from settings [card] that may not be set to garnish the optimal speeds possible.

Also, you max out at ~250mbps - 300mbps range due to the cards being N, not AC.

Both the desktop (Asus Maximus VI Impact) and laptop (Chromebook Pixel LS) have AC cards. The desktop uses a Broadcom BCM4352 - https://www.broadcom.com/products/wirel … an/bcm4352 while the laptop uses an Intel 7260 - https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/u … ooth.html.

Both cards are 2x2. Both have never gotten over 4xx mbps wireless down on stock firmware (OpenWRT firmware is much slower).

While I could theoretically upgrade the wireless on the laptop and desktop, there are no 3x3 AC cards that fit the mini-PCI form factor (that I have found). The only 3x3 small form wireless card that I know of is the Broadcom BCM4360 (https://www.broadcom.com/products/Wirel … ns/BCM4360) - which uses a custom form factor on the rMBP (http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/stori … t-wlan.jpg).

If you can think of settings to change to get faster speeds, let me know. In fair warning, I've spent literally weeks trying to tweak things to get higher speeds. Nothing worked. Best wireless speeds I've gotten were via the desktop on stock router firmware:

• 446d 360u

• 433d 359u

• 437d 364u.

• 432d 368u

• 427d 368u

• 430d 362u

• 427d 354u

Your Intel 7260 is probably the 7260N or 7260A (7260HMW BN or 7260HMW BA), not 7260AC (7260HMW)... if it is the 7260AC, then your WiFi driver settings need to be tweaked under network adapters on your PC. 

If using Windows, go to Device Manager - Network Adapters, and if it's the AC card, it should be listed as Intel(R) Dual Band Wireless-AC 7260.

WiFi speeds are a two part equation, with both sides (Router and WiFi Card) of the equation needing to be optimized for the other.  For AC, both the WiFi driver settings for the WiFi card, and the AC settings on the router (channel needs to be above 140, preferably in the 150s; router needs optimal placement within the home; etc) need to be optimized for AC speeds to be obtained.

JW0914 wrote:

WiFi speeds are a two part equation, with both sides (Router and WiFi Card) of the equation needing to be optimized for the other.  For AC, both the WiFi driver settings for the WiFi card, and the AC settings on the router (channel needs to be above 140, preferably in the 150s; router needs optimal placement within the home; etc) need to be optimized for AC speeds to be obtained.

Both cards are AC, I've already confirmed this. When I was testing the speeds, the router was in the same room as the devices, with no obstacles. There are not many 5GHz networks around either to interfere.

When I changed the channel from auto to 150+, it didn't change the speeds. If you can think of settings to change from the default on the device side (specifically Windows 8.1 for the BCM4352), let me know.

EDIT:
Have you confirmed that you you're getting the speeds you mentioned? Do you have a gigabit fiber ISP?

On your windows 8.1 see what task manager tells you about wifi right click on the wifi and view network details. You should have 867 there if close to the router.

dlang wrote:

...
What is it that you think the RAM should be used for when routing packets? Bufferbloat is in part a result of allowing a system to use too much ram for buffering packets that should be dropped.
...

Chiming in on this. I tested two different WRT1900AC V2s to see if the added memory (512mb vs 256mb) would help out transmission/samba.

On my gig fiber connection, I couldn't get over an average of 25mbps up or down. Sometimes it would return the expected wireless speed of ~400mbps up/down, but very VERY rarely (and generally only for the first few speedtests after a router reboot). Running the speedtests on DSL reports showed buffer bloat of 1000-2000ms average. On my V1, it averaged around 60ms.

I ended up returning both V2s because I could not figure out how to deal with the bufferbloat issue (yes, I tried sqm and it didn't help that much).

davidc502 wrote:

northbound wrote:

Yes I am hosting files on the router
I have a usb3 1 Tb hd  and a 2 Gig flash drive plugged into the router But I guess I will have to set up a NAS. Since openwrt can't seem to handle it. There should be no reason to buffer more than 60 or 70 Meg. And when the transfer is complete it should release the memory. But the only way to release the memory is to do a umount on the drive.

Mounted a USB on /mnt/usb

Proceeded to transfer 1.5Gig Video File.   It would transfer around 200MBytes, and then the SCP connection was dropped.

However, I monitored memory utilization during the partial transfer, and practically all the RAM is used. Also, the RAM isn't released until the USB mount is un-mounted as was pointed out.

Below is a test transfer via the usb port on the back of the router.
***EDIT***

I just wanted to confirm Northbound's findings.

Also, I attempted to transfer the file 3 times, and all failed as the scp connection was dropped.

Could a workaround be using a swap partition?

kirkgbr wrote:

northbound wrote:

On http://winscp.net/eng/docs/faq_4gb site there is this

'However, there are restrictions placed by protocols used. SCP protocol does not support files over 4 GB (32-bit boundary), while SFTP and FTP support them.

Please note that a size limit may also be imposed by particular server implementations" <Which I think is where the problem is. I am only at 477 meg when the transfer fails. The main reason for using this is I do not have to set up samba or ftp server I mount the drive and go. I guess I may as well quit trying to figure this out since I get nowhere
Thanks for the info.

The following Winscp forum link is a bit dated but there seems/seemed to be many folks having the same issue with Winscp client app.   

http://winscp.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7913

Wondering if it's a failure from the app side as others reported.

It is a bit dated No biggie ftp works I was just curious as to why it happens.

iwrotecode wrote:

dlang wrote:

...
What is it that you think the RAM should be used for when routing packets? Bufferbloat is in part a result of allowing a system to use too much ram for buffering packets that should be dropped.
...

Chiming in on this. I tested two different WRT1900AC V2s to see if the added memory (512mb vs 256mb) would help out transmission/samba.

On my gig fiber connection, I couldn't get over an average of 25mbps up or down. Sometimes it would return the expected wireless speed of ~400mbps up/down, but very VERY rarely (and generally only for the first few speedtests after a router reboot). Running the speedtests on DSL reports showed buffer bloat of 1000-2000ms average. On my V1, it averaged around 60ms.

I ended up returning both V2s because I could not figure out how to deal with the bufferbloat issue (yes, I tried sqm and it didn't help that much).

Interesting, the people testing the 1900 on the bufferbloat list are getting much better latency than that. what settings did you try with sqm

Unless your wifi chip is built directly into the motherboard (which isn't common), you should be able to upgrade it.

JW0914 wrote:

Unless your wifi chip is built directly into the motherboard (which isn't common), you should be able to upgrade it.

It is increasingly common for wifi to be integrated, especially on ultrabooks.

WiFi speeds have little to do with internet download speeds, unless wifi speeds are below the speed of your internet service.  For example, my internet speed is 65mbps, or 8.125MB/s, so unless an ancient g wifi card was used, wifi speed would have no effect on actual internet speed. My 866.7mbps speed I listed was in reference to LAN, not WAN.

Have you confirmed you're running the latest driver from Intel for your 7260ac?  Verify by going to intel's download center and manually searching for the driver (you can download their driver update software, however it won't give you the actual driver version, which is what you need to verify).

Intel driver settings I have set are:

2.4ghz - 20mhz only
5.2ghz - Auto
ad hoc - 6
ad hoc qos - WMM enabled
ARP - enabled
BT AMP - enabled
Fat Channel - disabled
GTK - enabled
HT - VHT Mode
Mixed Mode - CTS-to-self enabled
NS Offload - enabled
Packet - enabled
Preferred - 5.2gHz
Roaming - Medium [3] (if utilizing in a wifi crowded area, change to highest [5])
Sleep - disabled
Throughput - enabled
Transmit - Highest [5]
U-APSD - enabled
wake - disabled
wake - disabled
wireless - a/g (can be set to a only, unless you utilize network devices still using g)

Router 5.2gHz Settings:

AC 157 80
27db

Distance - 50

WMM Enabled

WPA-2 PSK 
Force CCMP (AES)

AC should always have it's own network, as the network has to transmit at the speed of the slowest device connected.

On your windows 8.1 see what task manager tells you about wifi right click on the wifi and view network details. You should have 867 there if close to the router.

Interesting, the people testing the 1900 on the bufferbloat list are getting much better latency than that. what settings did you try with sqm

the reports there are showing ~35ms and they tracked that down to something that chunks data in 70ms worth of packets.

When you are getting your 1000ms, is this on a wired or wireless connection?

dlang wrote:

Interesting, the people testing the 1900 on the bufferbloat list are getting much better latency than that. what settings did you try with sqm

I tried stock, OpenWRT stock, OpenWRT SQM. Each had slow speeds. Enabling SQM reduced bufferbloat reported on DSLreports, but still resulted in slower speeds. I followed the recommended settings on http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/sqm. Tried two different values for download/upload speed (950000 and 600000).

dlang wrote:

the reports there are showing ~35ms and they tracked that down to something that chunks data in 70ms worth of packets.

When you are getting your 1000ms, is this on a wired or wireless connection?

Wireless. Wired was fine with no bufferbloat, speeds around 9xxmbps.