A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Cheap wired-only router



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 1st 19, 02:25 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Theo[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Cheap wired-only router

It looks like my BT Smart Hub (HH6) is having trouble with devices roaming
between its wifi interface and another access point attached to its
ethernet. The wifi on the HH6 is rather good, but it looks like the routing
is suffering. It isn't supported by OpenWRT at present.

If I can demote the HH6 to being a wifi access point only (and that helps
the problem), what's a good consumer router for ethernet only routing? The
BT Homehub 5 previously mentioned here has slow NAT performance, so won't
keep up with FTTP. I've previously used an x86 for this, but it was a bit
large, loud (fans) and power hungry.

There are some offerings from Ubiquiti and Mikrotik, but I'm less than keen
on their pay-per-feature business model. I suppose OpenWRT is an option for
those. Ideally I'd like to keep this as cheap as possible too, so not
buying something new from Netgear and friends (which are also very focused
on the wifi side, which I'm not interested in).

Are there any ISP routers like the HH5 that are cheap on the secondhand
market and would be good for repurposing?

Thanks
Theo
  #2  
Old August 1st 19, 03:19 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Andy Burns[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 417
Default Cheap wired-only router

Theo wrote:

The
BT Homehub 5 previously mentioned here has slow NAT performance, so won't
keep up with FTTP.


When hh5a only enabled single CPU it would bottleneck, but now the
kernel enables both cores mine can keep up with 80Mbps over wifi (and I
think it's the supplicant that eats most CPU)

  #3  
Old August 1st 19, 03:24 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Andy Burns[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 417
Default Cheap wired-only router

Andy Burns wrote:

When hh5a only enabled single CPU it would bottleneck, but now the
kernel enables both cores mine can keep up with 80Mbps over wifi (and I
think it's the supplicant that eats most CPU)


hostapd rather than the supplicant

testing with https://speedof.me

peak download about 76Mbps
gets one core to 98% the other to 33%

  #4  
Old August 1st 19, 10:02 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Theo[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Cheap wired-only router

Andy Burns wrote:
peak download about 76Mbps
gets one core to 98% the other to 33%


Ouch, that's pretty awful. I'd expect a gigabit router to get somewhere
near line speed. Maybe not with tiny packets, but I wouldn't expect it to
be hammered just pushing basic traffic through.

Theo
  #5  
Old August 2nd 19, 01:58 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Andy Burns[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 417
Default Cheap wired-only router

Theo wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

peak download about 76Mbps
gets one core to 98% the other to 33%


Ouch, that's pretty awful. I'd expect a gigabit router to get somewhere
near line speed.


The VDSL line speed in that case being the 76Mbps, allowing for whatever
fudge factor plusnet apply to get to IP profile from sync speed.

Maybe not with tiny packets, but I wouldn't expect it to
be hammered just pushing basic traffic through.


When copying about 500MB of files from a samba share on a wired PC to
the same wifi laptop, it gets about 150Mbps and each core is about 50%
loaded, but it's not clear where the CPU usage is being chalked up to,
some is still hostapd, some ksoftirqd, but they only add up to about 25%
according to htop.

Remove wifi from the equation at the laptop end and the router CPU stays
under 5%, throughput exceeds 700Mbps on large files, not sure what the
bottleneck is at that point, all files should be comfortably cached on
the samba side, but average throughput maybe 250Mbps.

Maybe I'll try some iperf tests instead ...
  #6  
Old August 2nd 19, 12:48 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default Cheap wired-only router

On 02/08/2019 01:58, Andy Burns wrote:

Remove wifi from the equation at the laptop end and the router CPU stays
under 5%, throughput exceeds 700Mbps on large files, not sure what the
bottleneck is at that point, all files should be comfortably cached on
the samba side, but average throughput maybe 250Mbps.


As it happens, for comparison ...

I have been forced to reconfigure my two Zyxel NSA 221 NASs - because,
for historical reasons too tedious and irrelevant to go into here,
originally I had configured the two HDs in each as separate volumes, one
of which is now full, so I have either to buy two bigger HDs or, as I
have decided, reconfigure each of them to create one virtual volume
across both disks - and, unfortunately, for each NAS this means
deleting the volume on each individual HD, and then creating a single
volume spanning both. So the procedure is:
1 Reconfigure one;
2 Copy all the data back across from the other;
3 Reconfigure the other;
4 Copy all the data back across from the one.
Currently I'm at stage 2.

The two NASs have gigabit ports and are connected via gigabit cables to
a D-Link DGS-1008D gigabit switch, so, once their IPs have been
configured, traffic passing between them doesn't have to go via the
router, only via the switch.

I've calculated that the copy is happening at approximately
139.2GB/day = 5.8GB/hr = 792Mbps.

  #7  
Old August 2nd 19, 12:59 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 478
Default Cheap wired-only router

On 02/08/2019 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/08/2019 01:58, Andy Burns wrote:

Remove wifi from the equation at the laptop end and the router CPU
stays under 5%, throughput exceeds 700Mbps on large files, not sure
what the bottleneck is at that point, all files should be comfortably
cached on the samba side, but average throughput maybe 250Mbps.


As it happens, for comparison ...

I have been forced to reconfigure my two Zyxel NSA 221 NASs* -* because,
for historical reasons too tedious and irrelevant to go into here,
originally I had configured the two HDs in each as separate volumes, one
of which is now full, so I have either to buy two bigger HDs or, as I
have decided, reconfigure each of them to create one virtual volume
across both disks* -* and, unfortunately, for each NAS this means
deleting the volume on each individual HD, and then creating a single
volume spanning both.* So the procedure is:
****1*** Reconfigure one;
****2*** Copy all the data back across from the other;
****3*** Reconfigure the other;
****4*** Copy all the data back across from the one.
Currently I'm at stage 2.

The two NASs have gigabit ports and are connected via gigabit cables to
a D-Link DGS-1008D gigabit switch, so, once their IPs have been
configured, traffic passing between them doesn't have to go via the
router, only via the switch.

I've calculated that the copy is happening at approximately
****139.2GB/day = 5.8GB/hr = 792Mbps.


Duh! Distracted while I was writing this and sent it prematurely. I
forgot to divide again by 60 to convert the rate from per minute to per
second, so it's much less than that, which explains why each copying
stage is taking so long. I think the limited resources of the NASs are
limiting the rate well below that of the network. So the complete
calculation should have been:
139.2GB/day = 5.8GB/hr = 13.2Mbps

  #8  
Old August 13th 19, 01:39 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Chris Bartram
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Cheap wired-only router

On 01/08/2019 22:02, Theo wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
peak download about 76Mbps
gets one core to 98% the other to 33%


Ouch, that's pretty awful. I'd expect a gigabit router to get somewhere
near line speed. Maybe not with tiny packets, but I wouldn't expect it to
be hammered just pushing basic traffic through.

Theo

I found this shift nearly the full gig.

https://shop.bt.com/products/tp-link...0vpn-897Y.html

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted - cheap broadband for connection only (don;t need email/web space) Mortimer uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 7 July 1st 09 11:34 AM
Use Voyager 2100 as wireless router only, connect to wired broadband router? Gushie uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 1 October 4th 07 11:23 AM
Cheap Cell Phone Plan?Can a Cheap Cell Phone Plan Really Save You Money? [email protected] uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 September 19th 07 12:44 PM
linked wired network(downstairs) to mixed wired/wireless network (upstairs) Matt uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 4 February 8th 04 10:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.