Joined: 07 Jun 2007 Posts: 244 Location: La Paz, Bolivia
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2021 23:38 Post subject: less that 1gb of transfer wired routers [SOLVED]
I had never paid attention to the speed of my network because I thought it was very good for what I was doing, but nevertheless I always suffered transferring 10gb or 20gb files from my data server to my computer until I get tired and started investigating And here at the forum helped me to realize that the cable from my server to my router was bad, now they have changed it and transmit to 1gb and now becoming my fastest device, thanks for all who helped me.
But I have noticed that my network is very slow and that my routers connected by cable do not even reach 400mbps of transmission:
Step to show current tests
MAINROUTER DD-WRT v3.0-r47206 std (08/19/21) 192.168.2.1
NETGEAR R9000 1gb port lan x 6 & 10gb port lan x 1
, ,
1ST WIRED AP (from lan to wan port) DD-WRT v3.0-r47225 std (08/23/21) 192.168.2.2
Archer C7v2 1gb port lan x 4
, ,
Joined: 08 May 2018 Posts: 14126 Location: Texas, USA
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 0:42 Post subject:
You will not get any better throughput on your hardware. You can try cubic TCP congestion control across the board and it might improve slightly, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I get what people are saying, but I have an older machine with an E6600 Core 2 duo and it can do ~400 Mbps max and it has negotiated a 1 Gbps link through the motherboard, and it is/has run Debian 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
Joined: 07 Jun 2007 Posts: 244 Location: La Paz, Bolivia
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 2:23 Post subject:
But my dubth with my network is about the transmission speed between the same routers wired to each other, if all my routers have 1gb ports
The tests are between themselves, not with devices connected to them, because I am already clear that whether the Wi-Fi connection depends on various aspects and variables of the client devices, but the test is between the routers themselves.
When it is connection WDS says that the speed drops to half for clients connected to Wi-Fi, that was the 1st reason that i preferred a connection in AP mode so that the loss to the client was not so much, however the wired connection between the R9000 and The C7 like the other AP's does not even reach 300mbs.
Could it be some aspect of the configuration itself? Or something else? _________________ Fiber Modem/Router: ZTE-ZXHN F670L ►►►►►► Internet 1
2G,3G,4G Modem: Amplimax FIT Elsys EPRL18 ►► Internet 2 (failover)
Joined: 07 Jun 2007 Posts: 244 Location: La Paz, Bolivia
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 13:06 Post subject:
Per Yngve Berg wrote:
You have a mis-configuration on the R9000.
The local lan IP address and gateway are not on the same sub-net (192.168.2.x).
are you mean this?
My internet modem ZTE (which I can't configure at all because I don't have the credentials) is 192.168.1.1 and it gives me a private ip 192.168.1.200.
before I had it empty and then put the mainrouter's lan ip 192.168.1.1 but it stop Of having internet in the 2 public VAP that i have (or WAP in AP2 & AP4)
What ip should i put there? Because we fought a lot so that the VAP had internet in the first place _________________ Fiber Modem/Router: ZTE-ZXHN F670L ►►►►►► Internet 1
2G,3G,4G Modem: Amplimax FIT Elsys EPRL18 ►► Internet 2 (failover)
ok and where could i see that data as well cpu, usr, sys etc because i just have this and dont kno if its so truthful
Quote:
so check the CPU load on the routers while the test is running...
in your picture you can also see 83,2% CPU Load on the remote side at ~245Mbit
royitoroy wrote:
test with less threads - less threads is less CPU load
Edit: besides, this seems to me to be a lot of retransmissions in 10sec (5357)
and as KP already pointed out (I use Cubic myself)
ok i will do yor same ipref3 code just withna vervos added 1st en westwood next with cubic and give notice as well _________________ Fiber Modem/Router: ZTE-ZXHN F670L ►►►►►► Internet 1
2G,3G,4G Modem: Amplimax FIT Elsys EPRL18 ►► Internet 2 (failover)
Joined: 07 Jun 2007 Posts: 244 Location: La Paz, Bolivia
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 14:04 Post subject:
westwood test 1
no started
during the test
result 1
cubic test 2
no started
during test
result 2
Quote:
Note: during test 1 the cpu graph always remained below 70 (normally it is at 50
56 with peaks of 63
64%) and only in the last 7 seconds at the time of adding the entire result did it go up to 80
90%.
In test 2 almost during the whole test I never go below 80
90% reaching 100% at times
EXTRA test 3 reno (I read that it is the predecessor of westwood and in some tests it showed to be better just to discart)
no started
during test
result 3
whats do you think? the three test ar ligthly the same...
reno seem to be ligthly more efficient in cpu... but in none of three reach at least 500mbps bteetween them _________________ Fiber Modem/Router: ZTE-ZXHN F670L ►►►►►► Internet 1
2G,3G,4G Modem: Amplimax FIT Elsys EPRL18 ►► Internet 2 (failover)
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 6410 Location: UK, London, just across the river..
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 14:32 Post subject:
TCP BBR
Bottleneck Bandwidth and Round-trip propagation time (BBR) is a CCA developed at Google in 2016.[25] While most CCAs are loss-based, in that they rely on packet loss to detect congestion and lower rates of transmission, BBR, like TCP Vegas, is model-based. The algorithm uses the maximum bandwidth and round-trip time at which the network delivered the most recent flight of outbound data packets to build a model of the network. Each cumulative or selective acknowledgment of packet delivery produces a rate sample which records the amount of data delivered over the time interval between the transmission of a data packet and the acknowledgment of that packet.[26] As network interface controllers evolve from megabit per second to gigabit per second performance, the latency associated with bufferbloat instead of packet loss becomes a more reliable marker of the maximum throughput, making model-based CCAs which provide higher throughput and lower latency, such as BBR, a more reliable alternative to more popular loss-based algorithms like TCP CUBIC.
so, for best performance choose either BBR or CUBIC !
to be honest dig deeply as R9000 should deliver much more...than 100Mbit... try all the ports, check cables..be sure ISP is providing whatever is expected... _________________ Atheros
TP-Link WR740Nv1 ---DD-WRT 55179 WAP
TP-Link WR1043NDv2 -DD-WRT 55303 Gateway/DoT,Forced DNS,Ad-Block,Firewall,x4VLAN,VPN
TP-Link WR1043NDv2 -Gargoyle OS 1.15.x AP,DNS,QoS,Quotas
Qualcomm-Atheros
Netgear XR500 --DD-WRT 55460 Gateway/DoH,Forced DNS,AP Isolation,4VLAN,Ad-Block,Firewall,Vanilla
Netgear R7800 --DD-WRT 55460 Gateway/DoT,AD-Block,Forced DNS,AP&Net Isolation,x3VLAN,Firewall,Vanilla
Netgear R9000 --DD-WRT 55363 Gateway/DoT,AD-Block,AP Isolation,Firewall,Forced DNS,x2VLAN,Vanilla
Broadcom
Netgear R7000 --DD-WRT 55460 Gateway/SmartDNS/DoH,AD-Block,Firewall,Forced DNS,x3VLAN,VPN
NOT USING 5Ghz ANYWHERE
------------------------------------------------------
Stubby DNS over TLS I DNSCrypt v2 by mac913
Joined: 08 May 2018 Posts: 14126 Location: Texas, USA
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 15:27 Post subject:
I doubt those Archers have BBR since you have to have a certain kernel version to have it, unless it is backported. Which is why I said cubic. Also, we're talking lan-side only throughput, Alozaros. Pay attention. _________________ "Life is but a fleeting moment, a vapor that vanishes quickly; All is vanity"
Contribute To DD-WRT Pogo - A minimal level of ability is expected and needed... DD-WRT Releases 2023 (PolitePol)
DD-WRT Releases 2023 (RSS Everything)
----------------------
Linux User #377467 counter.li.org / linuxcounter.net
Joined: 08 May 2018 Posts: 14126 Location: Texas, USA
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 15:59 Post subject:
~250Mbit/s is probably the max that will be seen here. IDGAF what you do. Perhaps a test between R9000 and "server" would see ~1Gbit/s data transfer, but not from the Archers to any other point in the network. I'm out of this circular discussion. _________________ "Life is but a fleeting moment, a vapor that vanishes quickly; All is vanity"
Contribute To DD-WRT Pogo - A minimal level of ability is expected and needed... DD-WRT Releases 2023 (PolitePol)
DD-WRT Releases 2023 (RSS Everything)
----------------------
Linux User #377467 counter.li.org / linuxcounter.net
Last edited by kernel-panic69 on Sat Sep 04, 2021 18:15; edited 1 time in total
~250Mbit/s is probably the max that will be seen here. IDGAF what you do. I don't think even unmanaged switches in place of the A7s and C7 and a test between R9000 and "server" would see a full 1Gbit/s data transfer. The link speed is irrelevant; I think @royitoroy seems to think that gigabit ethernet means you get 1Gbit/s data transfer, no matter what. I'm out of this circular discussion.
he tests between the R9000 and the Archer
that is so slow because of the slow CPU of the Archer
he should test between the R9000 and the NAS - that should be much faster, depending on the switch performance to 900Mbit
Joined: 13 Aug 2013 Posts: 6858 Location: Romerike, Norway
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2021 16:50 Post subject:
royitoroy wrote:
My internet modem ZTE (which I can't configure at all because I don't have the credentials) is 192.168.1.1 and it gives me a private ip 192.168.1.200.
before I had it empty and then put the mainrouter's lan ip 192.168.1.1 but it stop Of having internet in the 2 public VAP that i have (or WAP in AP2 & AP4)
What ip should i put there? Because we fought a lot so that the VAP had internet in the first place
It's the gateway for the lan interface. Your modem is not connected to a lan port. Leave it blank.
If you have another router, put it's IP at 192.168.2.x here.