[Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] Two d-link products tested for bloat...
konikofi at candelatech.com
Wed Feb 25 19:00:34 EST 2015
I did some rtt_fair4be tests on different APs per Dave's request. The
test setup was a LANforge 802.11ac box with a wired port connected to
the AP LAN port and with 4 emulated wireless stations that were
connected to the AP wireless over the air. I ran the test on each of the
following APs with firmware versions:
netgear3700v2 - 18.104.22.168
netgear6300 - v22.214.171.124_1.0.50
netgear7000 - dd-wrt-23884M
dlink-dgl5500 - 1.11b03
linksys1900ac - 126.96.36.199582
asus-rt-ac66r - 188.8.131.52.374_5517
Here's a comparison plot of box totals:
Here's a tarball of all the test results:
I'm still refining the test setup, so I'll be re-running these as well
as trying out other APs.
On 02/19/2015 06:04 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> I ordered a d-link DGL-5500 from amazon this week. It arrived today.
> This is their almost top of the line 802.11ac router.
> Their streamboost QoS feature - the first thing you see on their
> configuration page - LOVELY gui, actually! - was entirely broken in
> the uplink direction.
> Admittedly that was the first generation firmware. I know how hard it
> is to get that right. So I tried to update it. My attempt to update
> the firmware for it from their website, bricked it. And it appears the
> only way to update it, or to update it to openwrt, is via a gui, not
> ok.... so...
> In an orgy of giving companies that don´t deserve my money, money,
> I also got the DIR-860L. It was the "A1" model, which of course, has
> no support in openwrt, and there is no way to figure out if an online
> retailer is selling the entirely different B model or not.
> Their version of the QoS system was entirely broken in *both
> directions*. While I was mildly happy that it used weighted fair
> queuing by default, bandwidth limitation failed to work *at all*,
> except, that it did classify CS1 traffic, as *higher* priority than
> best effort.
> So in both cases, no matter what you did, even if you tried to do the
> right thing... you had bufferbloat induced on the next hop (if, I was
> trying to actually test this on a cablemodem or dsl link)
> I would really to flush this crap from the marketplace, and the only
> way left, I think, is to stop being a nice guy.
> My problem is, that I really am a nice guy, and the only way I could
> possibly do that is put on a persona, do a blog, call it something
> like the angry engineer, or something like that.
> But I am pretty sure that venom I would have to summon on a daily
> basis would be bad for my blood pressure. Maybe we could all get
> together on it, and only raise our collective BP by a point or three
> each? The Avenging Engineers?
> the relevant netperf-wrapper data is in each of these dirs:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Felix, hi List,
>> On Jan 25, 2015, at 12:09 , Felix Fietkau <nbd at openwrt.org> wrote:
>>> Here's another candidate:
>>> CPU: MT7621 (dual-core MIPS, 880 MHz, 4 virtual CPUs)
>>> The device has preliminary OpenWrt support already. In my tests, handles
>>> ~820 Mbit/s NAT without any special acceleration features (with fq_codel,
>>> no shaping). Haven't done any tests with shaping yet.
>>> Wifi (MT7612E) is still buggy with my mt76 driver, but I'll fix that in
>>> March when I get back from vacation.
>>> - Felix
>> I am currently searching for a replacement for my wndr3700v2 as it is running out of steam on my temporary 100/40 Mbps link. This thing looks quite decent, but I notice between https://wikidevi.com/wiki/D-Link_DIR-860L_rev_A1 and https://wikidevi.com/wiki/D-Link_DIR-860L_rev_B1 that d-link reused the sam name for quite different hardware implementations, and only the more recent B1 revision will work for us. (Is it just me or do you also find this tendency to not even add the revision to the official name a bit annoying?)
>> So, does anybody here now how to order a specific revision in Germany? Or is the only way to wait a bit and hope the A1 revision clears the retail channel so only B1’s are left? I notice that from looking at the internal photos for both devices posted on the FCC site that the old A1 Broadcom revision has its USB port "above" the ethernet ports while the B1 Mediatek revision has the USB port between DC in and below the ethernet ports. Am I correct in assuming that deployed hardware needs to match the FCC design exactly (that is, in case of revision a new FCC submission with new photos is required)?
>> Best Regards
konikofi at candelatech.com
More information about the Cerowrt-devel