Joined: 13 Mar 2014 Posts: 856 Location: Montreal, QC
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:51 Post subject:
XenonKilla wrote:
Uhhh is there a setting that needs to be enabled for this new "Turboboost" or am I missing something here?? I'm getting the same if not just a little worse speeds than I was with 24500. I tested with both iPerf and Lan Speed Test and got the same results.
Unless I am misunderstanding your findings, you are testing LAN-LAN. Or did you setup a WAN server? Turboboost is accelerates NAT therefore LAN-WAN over IPv4.
Privoxy is broken with me also with this new build.
Is Privoxy your girlfriend? Why did she break up with you?
Sarcasm aside, I guess you mean it's broken for you. _________________ ▲ ACTIVE ▲
[Broadcom ARM64] ASUS RT-AC86U v? --802.11ac wave 2-- RT-AC86U Thread | ASUSWRT-Merlin 384.18-Kernel-4.1.27
Uhhh is there a setting that needs to be enabled for this new "Turboboost" or am I missing something here?? I'm getting the same if not just a little worse speeds than I was with 24500. I tested with both iPerf and Lan Speed Test and got the same results.
Unless I am misunderstanding your findings, you are testing LAN-LAN. Or did you setup a WAN server? Turboboost is accelerates NAT therefore LAN-WAN over IPv4.
No I test LAN-WAN and WAN-LAN just like I always do. I use a different computer connected to WAN where I have iPerf Server setup. Then I setup and run iPerf Client on a computer connected to the LAN port. I've gotten up to 841mbps transfer speeds on the stock FW using this setup so I know my setup is plenty capable of at least handling up to 841mpbs.
But yeah with the new 24710M I'm only getting 284mbps Upload and 314mpbs Download. I was getting 348mbps upload and 362mbps download on 24500.
Regardless, I'm not seeing any kinda "Turboboost" increase like what's be talked about. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't something that had to be manually enabled via command-line or something like that.
Uhhh is there a setting that needs to be enabled for this new "Turboboost" or am I missing something here?? I'm getting the same if not just a little worse speeds than I was with 24500. I tested with both iPerf and Lan Speed Test and got the same results.
Unless I am misunderstanding your findings, you are testing LAN-LAN. Or did you setup a WAN server? Turboboost is accelerates NAT therefore LAN-WAN over IPv4.
No I test LAN-WAN and WAN-LAN just like I always do. I use a different computer connected to WAN where I have iPerf Server setup. Then I setup and run iPerf Client on a computer connected to the LAN port. I've gotten up to 841mbps transfer speeds on the stock FW using this setup so I know my setup is plenty capable of at least handling up to 841mpbs.
But yeah with the new 24710M I'm only getting 284mbps Upload and 314mpbs Download. I was getting 348mbps upload and 362mbps download on 24500.
Regardless, I'm not seeing any kinda "Turboboost" increase like what's be talked about. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't something that had to be manually enabled via command-line or something like that.
24500 had no turboboost 24710 has and the kernel is compiled with debug info, thus is a bit slower.
But to verify DDTB is up and running and packages go through it you just have to run command:
iptables -vnL -t raw
if you don't see ddtb rules, then you did not setup the router correctly e.g. specified no gateway, gateway would be the pc on the wan side. _________________ KONG PB's: http://www.desipro.de/ddwrt/
KONG Info: http://tips.desipro.de/
Kong, this is the output of the command for my router.
Does this mean I missed something?
<Kong> wrote:
24500 had no turboboost 24710 has and the kernel is compiled with debug info, thus is a bit slower.
But to verify DDTB is up and running and packages go through it you just have to run command:
iptables -vnL -t raw
if you don't see ddtb rules, then you did not setup the router correctly e.g. specified no gateway, gateway would be the pc on the wan side.
ddwrt_upgrade.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
40.75 KB
Viewed:
7992 Time(s)
_________________ Router currently owned:
Netgear R7800 - Router
Netgear R7000 - AP mode
I cloned the MAC to see if that helped the GUI sluggishness with IE11. Did some. But not across the board. I don't know if it is taking a long time to collect the data to be displayed in the GUI or if it is taking a long time to display the data.
If that makes any sense.
After cloning the MAC, the correct one of course, I had to unplug the router and plug it back in, obviously, so that it refreshed some information somewhere otherwise I could not connect to the Internet.
This isn't a big deal but it seems to me like some dot is not connecting and the sluggishness, having to unplug the router, are symptoms of something else being amiss. _________________ Jim
Netgear R7000
Kong's 24800M OC to 1200,800
Previously:
Asus RT-N66U
Linksys E3000
Linksys WRT54GS Version 2.1
Buffalo WHR-HP-G54
Linksys WRT54G Version 1.1
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:01 Post subject: tested with dlink 868l
Tested Kongs 24710M Build with dlink 868l
Installed and reset to defaults.
Everything seems to be working ok except
Issue with ddwrt web interface responding when i navigate to it, sometimes slow - no response or it looks like this . (screenshot from Firefox)
Wireless 5ghz AC speed download from my local server using my new Edimax EW-7822UAC adapter is around 15 mb sec on stock it's around 29 mb sec (slower speeds are to be expected)
Looking forward to a stable version with this fancy hardware accelerated Nat.
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:48 Post subject: Re: tested with dlink 868l
bcmalloy wrote:
Wireless 5ghz AC speed download from my local server using my new Edimax EW-7822UAC adapter is around 15 mb sec on stock it's around 29 mb sec (slower speeds are to be expected)
Why do you expect slower speeds? I expect at least the same or better speeds. But DLink is not really well supported thus might be a problem specific to DLink.
I think a while back you said that dink drivers are closed source so not to expect the same speed as stock, my findings are also it is definitely not as fast, yet.
Some issues with this build and Dlink 868l, last build worked much better.
