[Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC

Fri May 29 16:26:00 EDT 2015

I'm not sure what the difference bwtwen mimo and mu-mimo is, pointer please?

David Lang

On Fri, 29 May 2015, Pedro Tumusok wrote:

> From my understanding you need an AP that supports mu-mimo and then you
> have different scenarios of of how to support clients. If the client
> supports mu-mimo then you get the "full" mi-mimo experience. If the client
> does not support it, you do not get the "full" mu-mimo experience for that
> or those clients.
>
> Example if you got an 8x8 mu-mimo ap, then you can for instance use 4 of
> those 8 for a mu-mimo setup and the last 4 can be used for 4 groups of
> single stream connections or one 3x3 and 1x1. And probably many more
> combinations like that.
> But I might be way off on this, do not have any wave 2 products to play
> with yet.
>
> Pedro
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I think I'm understanding that unless the client is mimo enabled, mimo
>> on the the AP doesn't do any good. I'm focused on the high density
>> conference type setup and was wondering if going to these models would
>> result in any mor effective airtime. It sounds like the answer is no.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015, Pedro Tumusok wrote:
>>
>>  Is the 1900AC MU-Mimo? If not then its still normal Airtime limitations,
>>> unless you consider concurrent 2x2 2.4GHz and 3x3 5GHz as a MU setup.
>>> Also there are very few  devices with builtin 3x3 ac client. From the top
>>> of my head I can not think of one.
>>>
>>> Pedro
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>>>
>>>  looking at the 1900ac vs the 1200ac, one question. what is needed to
>>>> benefit from the 3x3 vs the 2x2?
>>>>
>>>> In theory the 3x3 can transmit to three clients at the same time while
>>>> the
>>>> 2x2 can transmit to two clients at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> But does the client need specific support for this? (mimo or -ac) Or will
>>>> this work for 802.11n clients as well?
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 May 2015, Aaron Wood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 23:19:19 -0700
>>>>
>>>>> From: Aaron Wood <woody77 at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: bloat <bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>>>>>     cerowrt-devel <cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>>>>>     Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 at 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> Bloat mailing list
>>>> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bloat mailing list
>>>> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>