Re: [Cerowrt-devel] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC

[Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2075 bytes --]

After more tweaking, and after Comcast's network settled down some, I have
some rather quite nice results:

http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2015/05/sqm-scripts-on-linksys-wrt1900ac-part-1.html



So it looks like the WRT1900AC is a definite contender for our faster cable
services.  I'm not sure if it will hold out to the 300Mbps that you want,
Dave, but it's got plenty for what Comcast is selling right now.

-Aaron

P.S.  Broken wifi to the MacBook was a MacBook issue, not a router issue
(sorted itself out after I put the laptop into monitor mode to capture
packets).

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I've been lurking on the OpenWRT forum, looking to see when the CC builds
> for the WRT1900AC stabilized, and they seem to be so (for a very "beta"-ish
> version of stable).
>
> So I went ahead and loaded up the daily ( CHAOS CALMER (Bleeding Edge,
> r45715)).
>
> After getting Luci and sqm-scripts installed, I did a few baseline tests.
> Wifi to the MacBook Pro is...  broken.  30Mbps vs. 90+ on the stock
> firmware.  iPhone is fine (80-90Mbps download speed from the internet).
>
> After some rrul runs, this is what I ended up with:
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538967
>
> sqm-scripts are set for:
> 100Mbps download
> 10Mbps upload
> fq_codel
> ECN
> no-squash
> don't ignore
>
> Here's a before run, with the stock firmware:
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/337392
>
> So, unfortunately, it's still leaving 50Mbps on the table.
>
> However, if I set the ingress limit higher (130Mbps), buffering is still
> controlled.  Not as well, though.  from +5ms to +10ms, with lots of
> jitter.  But it still looks great to the dslreports test:
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538990
>
> But the upside?  load is practically nil.  The WRT1900AC, with it's
> dual-core processor is more than enough to keep up with this (from a load
> point of view), but it seems like the bottleneck isn't the raw CPU power
> (cache?).
>
> I'll get a writeup with graphs on the blog tomorrow (I hope).
>
> -Aaron
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3246 bytes --]