Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 825 Location: near Toronto, Canada
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 16:15 Post subject: discrepancy re: recommended firmware
To whom it may concern....
There appears to be some discrepancies between the firmware versions recommended by the Peacock thread, and Redhawk0's firmware recommendation sticky.
In particular I noticed that the "Peacock" thread recommends EKO's 12548 build as "THE" build to use.
Redhawk0, on the other hand, recommends either BS 13525 or EKO's 13491.
Is this simply a case of updates being out of sync, or is there a good reason for the contradictory information?
If we are pointing folks to the stickies for authoritative guidance, it would be most helpful to have consistent information posted there. _________________ WRT54G-RG
WRT54G-TM
WRT54GL v1.1
WRT54G v6, v8
WRT54GS v5
WRH54G
Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 825 Location: near Toronto, Canada
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 13:05 Post subject:
... so the explanation is that there are 2 different recommendations, with no specific technical reason other than one recommendation is more "conservative"?
Wouldn't DD-WRT users be better served if we could have better consistency?
As someone who was actively following this forum for more than a year, then drifted away, I have to say that coming back to the forum looking for specific details still seems to be more frustrating than necessary... and unlike most newbies, I have a clue of where to begin to look. _________________ WRT54G-RG
WRT54G-TM
WRT54GL v1.1
WRT54G v6, v8
WRT54GS v5
WRH54G
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 168 Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 13:19 Post subject:
hpsenicka wrote:
... so the explanation is that there are 2 different recommendations, with no specific technical reason other than one recommendation is more "conservative"?
"Redhawk tests many builds on many different hardware and his build recommendations can be trusted. However, newer builds haven't been tested for as long. I am more conservative in my build recommendations, and the builds I have recommended have worked absolutely problem free for months straight in many different basic configurations and router."
I think what this is trying to say is that Redhawk has tested the newer builds for a shorter period on a more limited number of configs and routers, whereas murkkf's recommendations are for a much longer period of time based on a more comprehensive gathering of users' input on a wide variety of configs and routers.
In other words, you can try Redhawk's recommended newer builds, but you bear a much higher risk of bricking than the older recommended builds in Peackock. Stated simply, redhawk >>> it appears OK; Peacock >>> It works almost to a certainty on most supported routers.
At least, that is what it seems to imply.
There are also threads on specific newer builds.
All of these, I think, are useful in assessing what specific build you want to try for your specific situation. _________________ E3000 (converted from WRT610NV2)
ASUS RT-N56U Firmware 1.0.1.4 (reverted from 1.0.1.5)
Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 825 Location: near Toronto, Canada
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 13:36 Post subject:
Yes... I can read.
I appreciate there would be a need for additional caution with recent releases, and perhaps a qualified recommendation is justified for some period of time, but...
Redhawk's recommended build has been released for almost 5 months now.
The recommended Peacock build is almost 10 months old.
Wouldn't any stability issues or concerns be rather well understood by now? _________________ WRT54G-RG
WRT54G-TM
WRT54GL v1.1
WRT54G v6, v8
WRT54GS v5
WRH54G
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 13049 Location: Behind The Reset Button
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 13:51 Post subject:
It is a dilemma and confusing to say the least for a new member.
The router database (beta) is the biggest problem imo.
it suggests 99% of the time build 13064. On the other hand, many posts including the peacock say don't use it.
Redhawk hasn't been around in a while or at least when he pops in isn't here long so maybe his recommendation(s) are not up to date.
I run 12874 on everything except my main router. Routers I fix, go home with 12874 on them.
I run 13577 on my main router (TM). This build came about from the weekend prior to it being posted, Eko & another member worked on getting an SD card to work properly. I also tested that unpublished build and 13577 contained the fix(s).
I completely agree that there needs to be some consistency in build recommendations but I think the main thing to get sorted out is the router database.
BTW... 13064 was reported by one member to have throughput issues. It was never confirmed tmk.
One Q... Why is the newest build in the rdb, not in the download section (assuming you can find the download section) _________________ [Moderator Deleted]
Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 825 Location: near Toronto, Canada
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 14:53 Post subject:
barryware wrote:
I run 12874 on everything except my main router. Routers I fix, go home with 12874 on them.
Interesting... At this risk of drifting a little off topic, can you please elaborate on why you prefer this particular build?
I generally lean toward the EKO builds, and have been gradually moving units to svn13491 when I have an opportunity to upgrade. I still have a few using svn11796 that I want to refresh. _________________ WRT54G-RG
WRT54G-TM
WRT54GL v1.1
WRT54G v6, v8
WRT54GS v5
WRH54G
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 13049 Location: Behind The Reset Button
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 15:08 Post subject:
hpsenicka wrote:
barryware wrote:
I run 12874 on everything except my main router. Routers I fix, go home with 12874 on them.
Interesting... At this risk of drifting a little off topic, can you please elaborate on why you prefer this particular build?
I generally lean toward the EKO builds, and have been gradually moving units to svn13491 when I have an opportunity to upgrade. I still have a few using svn11796 that I want to refresh.
12874 in my testing, I have not found one problem.. No radio disconnects, not throughput issues, no encryption issues, etc, etc, etc. (I believe there is the dd-wrt logo missing from one of the info pages though).
11796?? Do you mean 11296? 11296 is a great build and for a long time, was the recommended build. Memory management seemed to have improved after 11296. _________________ [Moderator Deleted]
Joined: 31 Aug 2009 Posts: 2448 Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 15:08 Post subject:
hpsenicka wrote:
barryware wrote:
I run 12874 on everything except my main router. Routers I fix, go home with 12874 on them.
Interesting... At this risk of drifting a little off topic, can you please elaborate on why you prefer this particular build?
I generally lean toward the EKO builds, and have been gradually moving units to svn13491 when I have an opportunity to upgrade. I still have a few using svn11796 that I want to refresh.
Because it's tested stable by the forum members, this one included. _________________ Peacock Thread-FAQ -- dd-wrt Wiki
Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 825 Location: near Toronto, Canada
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 16:48 Post subject:
barryware wrote:
11796?? Do you mean 11296? 11296 is a great build and for a long time, was the recommended build. Memory management seemed to have improved after 11296.
No.. I meant 11796.
As I recall, the main reason I selected this version at the time was the requirement to support more than 64 devices in the MAC address table.
If memory serves, 11796 was one of the first relatively stable EKO releases to offer this capability. _________________ WRT54G-RG
WRT54G-TM
WRT54GL v1.1
WRT54G v6, v8
WRT54GS v5
WRH54G
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 Posts: 13049 Location: Behind The Reset Button
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 17:03 Post subject:
dunno.. that build is not in eko's download folder(s). Maybe that is the build that got pulled cuz it was either bricking routers, or an upgrade to another build running that build, would brick a router.
This came up yesterday (pulled build cuz of brickage) but I could not find the thread. _________________ [Moderator Deleted]
dunno.. that build is not in eko's download folder(s). Maybe that is the build that got pulled cuz it was either bricking routers, or an upgrade to another build running that build, would brick a router.
This came up yesterday (pulled build cuz of brickage) but I could not find the thread.
I have never had a problem with 12548 or 12874, in the setups I am using. Everything past 12874 seems to have one flaw or another. _________________ I fix "shortcuts". If you don't have time to read thoroughly, I don't have time to re-type what you missed.
Joined: 04 Jan 2007 Posts: 11564 Location: Wherever the wind blows- North America
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 22:09 Post subject:
barryware wrote:
Redhawk hasn't been around in a while or at least when he pops in isn't here long so maybe his recommendation(s) are not up to date.
I'm still here...but work has been so busy I can't spend much time here.
The recommendations in my announcement are proven builds and should work just fine in most applications and most routers. The Peacock (IMHO) is behind. (nothing personal Murrkf)
However, because these are BETA builds and there have been MANY problems after the 13525, I can't make a recommendation of them. The 13525 is the last of the "Stable" BETAs. I'm not saying you can't run newer builds...heck, all my units run newer builds, but they have certain "work-arounds" in place since the builds after 13525 have had many issues.
So...we are up to date, IMHO, and they are definitely better then the RDB 13064 build.
I kinda feel bad for the newbees too...but there isn't much in the way of providing a stable build other then to point them to the Recommendations thread.
redhawk _________________ The only stupid question....is the unasked one.
