Menu
What's new
By:
Filters Better Search

Search results

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

  1. R

    Apple's New AirPort Extreme Offers No Innovation

    I really enjoyed the review. I thought it was funny and light-hearted -- after all, it's "just" a Wifi access point, not the cure for cancer. And just to be clear, I own an Airport Extreme 802.11ac.
  2. R

    Apple's New AirPort Extreme Offers No Innovation

    Pretty comprehensive! Can you explain what the source of the file operations is? e.g. is it a Windows file server on Gig Ethernet?
  3. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful in unearthing any evidence to support your belief.
  4. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    That's pretty much what I'm planning to do.
  5. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    It's possible, but they are very new and only just starting to trickle into the marketplace, so will have to wait and see what the reports are. And from experience, marketing and CPU speed don't correlate to PPPoE performance. Also, even though they are "just $99", here in the UK they are going...
  6. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    That discussion thread is full of inaccuracies and incorrect terminology and comparing apples with oranges (the opening sentence of the original post "we know that PPPoE overhead..." is completely wrong at multiple levels). For example, the overhead of AAL5 (which sits on top of ATM), varies...
  7. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    It is 8 bytes per 1500-byte packet, or 0.5% -- i.e. nothing. See the MTU/MRU section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-point_protocol_over_Ethernet Its effect is in potentially causing packet fragmentation when 1500 byte packets have to be transmitted, and the router has to...
  8. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    The beauty of the home build is that you can replace the mini PCIe cards with whatever you want. 802.11ac seems completely pointless at the moment, as there are literally no clients for it. But in a couple of years, there will be plenty of 802.11ac mini PCIe cards to choose from, and it will be...
  9. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    I 100% agree. However, there is exactly ZERO chance of getting the ISP to change.
  10. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    From a quick visit to Newegg, LogicSupply and Crucial: DN2800MT Motherboard $110 1 GB RAM $10 Case (M350) $40 AC Power Adapter $25 Riser card + IO shield (to allow the 2nd NIC) $17 Additional Intel Gigabit NIC $35 Intel 6300 Ultimate N 450 Mbps $35 mSATA 32GB $51 (this is a luxury, I...
  11. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    Just a quick update. I'm returning the RT-N66U -- it definitely isn't capable of handling 300 Mbps of PPPoE. For future generations, here is the summary: I have a 300+ Mbps Internet connection, supplied over fibre (Fibre to the Premises), and requiring PPPoE. I purchased an Asus RT-N66U...
  12. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    I know, first world problem, right?! :) I've emailed Asus, so let's see what they come back with.
  13. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    :( I think DMZ is an option on the BT router. I will check this out. I was really hoping to have a single device. I guess it boils down to: do I really need the full 300 Mbps when 200 is so amazing anyway, or: is the marginal benefit of 200 -> 300 Mbps worth the additional latency and...
  14. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    Man I'm asleep at the wheel today... I saw the two HDMI ports and my mind saw two NICs. Sorry about the confusion.
  15. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    There are two versions of the NUC. One has dual GigE. The model number is DC3217IYE.
  16. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    Excellent points. I completely agree that the processor architectures are completely different, for me it was more to prove that it is indeed a very CPU intensive task. The RB951G-2HnD isn't available for another 2-3 weeks (it's new), so in the meantime I've asked their pre-sales whether they...
  17. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    Last night I built a Mikrotik RouterOS VM and gave it a dedicated physical NIC on my ESXi host (for the WAN port), and I achieved 300+ Mbps no problem. When I started throttling the CPU resources granted to the VM, it only started dropping below the full 300 Mbps when I went down to 400 MHz (at...
  18. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    I will run that test tonight. I'm 99% certain the problem is CPU related, but I still reckon there is some tweak that can be made to the PPPoE client in the RT-N66U to make it less CPU intensive.
  19. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    The one feature I want is the PPTP server so I can VPN into my router from my iPhone and/or laptop when I'm out and about. I would lose the ability to do that.
  20. R

    RT-N66U - Less performance than expected on high speed fibre connection

    I compared the ISP's router and the RT-N66U, and they both have a 1492 MTU (tested by pinging out with the no-fragment flag and trying different sizes). I just set it to 1454 on the RT-N66U and tested, and got virtually the same results (198.5 Mbps).
Top