[Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC

[Pedro Tumusok]

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
>
>


-- 
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20150529/8ef892e8/attachment-0002.html>