HarryMuscle
Senior Member
I'm running Merlin firmware on my AC66U B1 router and I noticed that there seems to be a bug in the Traditional QoS download bandwidth setting. Has anyone else noticed that also? With the User Defined Priorities are all set to 100% for download bandwidths I noticed the following pattern:
Setting Traditional QoS Download Bandwidth to 150 Mbps results in speed tests of around 120 Mbps
Setting it to 160 Mbps results in speed tests of around 140 Mbps
Setting it to 180 Mbps results in speed tests of around 150 Mbps
Setting it to 200 Mbps results in speed tests of around 155 Mbps
Setting it to 220 Mbps results in speed tests of around 165 Mbps
Setting it to 240 Mbps results in speed tests of around 167 Mbps (this one is pushing the limit of my interest connection though so it's probably not accurate)
That means in order to achieve aprox. 150 to 160 Mbps on my 170 Mbps connection I'm using a setting of 200 Mbps. I'm assuming this must be a bug of some sorts, or am I missing something obvious somewhere?
Thanks,
Harry
P.S. I'm running a slightly older version of the firmware (384.17 from 2020) so I'm not sure if this bug still exists in the current firmware, but I'm more curious if others have come across it or if I'm missing something obvious, more so than fixing the issue, since setting the bandwidth to a higher value seems to "fix" the issue.
Setting Traditional QoS Download Bandwidth to 150 Mbps results in speed tests of around 120 Mbps
Setting it to 160 Mbps results in speed tests of around 140 Mbps
Setting it to 180 Mbps results in speed tests of around 150 Mbps
Setting it to 200 Mbps results in speed tests of around 155 Mbps
Setting it to 220 Mbps results in speed tests of around 165 Mbps
Setting it to 240 Mbps results in speed tests of around 167 Mbps (this one is pushing the limit of my interest connection though so it's probably not accurate)
That means in order to achieve aprox. 150 to 160 Mbps on my 170 Mbps connection I'm using a setting of 200 Mbps. I'm assuming this must be a bug of some sorts, or am I missing something obvious somewhere?
Thanks,
Harry
P.S. I'm running a slightly older version of the firmware (384.17 from 2020) so I'm not sure if this bug still exists in the current firmware, but I'm more curious if others have come across it or if I'm missing something obvious, more so than fixing the issue, since setting the bandwidth to a higher value seems to "fix" the issue.