<div dir="ltr">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.<div>Also there are very few devices with builtin 3x3 ac client. From the top of my head I can not think of one.<div><br></div><div>Pedro</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, David Lang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david@lang.hm" target="_blank">david@lang.hm</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">looking at the 1900ac vs the 1200ac, one question. what is needed to benefit from the 3x3 vs the 2x2?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
But does the client need specific support for this? (mimo or -ac) Or will this work for 802.11n clients as well?<br>
<br>
David Lang<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 23 May 2015, Aaron Wood wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 23:19:19 -0700<br>
From: Aaron Wood <<a href="mailto:woody77@gmail.com" target="_blank">woody77@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: bloat <<a href="mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>,<br>
cerowrt-devel <<a href="mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>,<br>
Dave Taht <<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com" target="_blank">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
After more tweaking, and after Comcast's network settled down some, I have<br>
some rather quite nice results:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2015/05/sqm-scripts-on-linksys-wrt1900ac-part-1.html" target="_blank">http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2015/05/sqm-scripts-on-linksys-wrt1900ac-part-1.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So it looks like the WRT1900AC is a definite contender for our faster cable<br>
services. I'm not sure if it will hold out to the 300Mbps that you want,<br>
Dave, but it's got plenty for what Comcast is selling right now.<br>
<br>
-Aaron<br>
<br>
P.S. Broken wifi to the MacBook was a MacBook issue, not a router issue<br>
(sorted itself out after I put the laptop into monitor mode to capture<br>
packets).<br>
<br>
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Aaron Wood <<a href="mailto:woody77@gmail.com" target="_blank">woody77@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
All,<br>
<br>
I've been lurking on the OpenWRT forum, looking to see when the CC builds<br>
for the WRT1900AC stabilized, and they seem to be so (for a very "beta"-ish<br>
version of stable).<br>
<br>
So I went ahead and loaded up the daily ( CHAOS CALMER (Bleeding Edge,<br>
r45715)).<br>
<br>
After getting Luci and sqm-scripts installed, I did a few baseline tests.<br>
Wifi to the MacBook Pro is... broken. 30Mbps vs. 90+ on the stock<br>
firmware. iPhone is fine (80-90Mbps download speed from the internet).<br>
<br>
After some rrul runs, this is what I ended up with:<br>
<a href="http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538967" target="_blank">http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538967</a><br>
<br>
sqm-scripts are set for:<br>
100Mbps download<br>
10Mbps upload<br>
fq_codel<br>
ECN<br>
no-squash<br>
don't ignore<br>
<br>
Here's a before run, with the stock firmware:<br>
<a href="http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/337392" target="_blank">http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/337392</a><br>
<br>
So, unfortunately, it's still leaving 50Mbps on the table.<br>
<br>
However, if I set the ingress limit higher (130Mbps), buffering is still<br>
controlled. Not as well, though. from +5ms to +10ms, with lots of<br>
jitter. But it still looks great to the dslreports test:<br>
<a href="http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538990" target="_blank">http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538990</a><br>
<br>
But the upside? load is practically nil. The WRT1900AC, with it's<br>
dual-core processor is more than enough to keep up with this (from a load<br>
point of view), but it seems like the bottleneck isn't the raw CPU power<br>
(cache?).<br>
<br>
I'll get a writeup with graphs on the blog tomorrow (I hope).<br>
<br>
-Aaron<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bloat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net">Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat</a><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bloat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net">Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Best regards / Mvh<br>Jan Pedro Tumusok<br><br></div>
</div>