RV320 bandwidth management degrades performance

[theedge]

Hello,

I recently installed a rv320 router in our office to use our two internet connections. After a basic setup everything works fine.

Then I wanted to add a simple bandwidth management rule to allow a small reserved bandwidth for my VoIP phone (100 Kbps). The problem is that as soon as I enable the rule the up and down speeds drop severely :

With bandwidth management rule disabled speed test reports 0.9 Mbps up and 13 Mbps down

With bandwidth management rule enabled it drops to 0.35 Mbps up and 9 Mbps down !

I also tried the "priority mode" but the result was even worst !

Had anybody owning this router experienced similar behavior ?

Btw : I'm using the most recent FW available from Cisco.

Thank you.

 

[theedge]

update :
Our main internet line is finally back after being down for 2 weeks. It's a fiber connection and we get roughly 300Mbps up and down.

Going through the RV320 the bandwidth drops to 130Mbps.
Then if I activate the bandwidth management rules it drops even lower, to 80Mpbs !

What about the advertised throughput of 900Mbps ?

 

[sfx2000]

Sounds like you have a negotiated 100-Base-T connection on your WAN port - if your modem supports GiGe, then try swapping out the patch cable between the modem and the router...

and yes, traffic shaping can impact overall performance due to reservations...

sfx

 

[theedge]

Ok, got a few new cat6 cables this morning (was using cat5e)

1- Plugged my laptop directly in the modem with new cable : got around 950MBps up/down.
2- Insert the RV320 between modem and laptop, with new cable. Firewall disabled, bandwidth management disabled. I only get 130 Mbps. That is exactly the same value as before with CAT5e cables.
3- If I turn back on firewall (SPI disabled) ans bandwidth management I also get the exact same result as previous tests, that is : 80 Mbps.

Now obviously I do understand that the values appearing in the specsheets are always measured in ideal conditions, etc... BUT : I'd expect to have at least 50% to 75% of the advertised throughput. In the current situation I barely get 10% up and 10% down of the advertised throughput - so under 20% total.

 

[azazel1024]

What are you using for WAN? PPPoE?

PPPoE has some fairly significant processing overhead for compression and a lot of routers fall on their face when attempting it. So results will vary significantly if that is, in fact, what you are using to connect to the internet.

Most fiber is PPPoE.

TP-Link is supposedly very, very good with PPPoE on their routers, but this is second hand. I have no actual experience other than I know my netgear 3500Lv1 is perfectly capable of saturating my 75/35 PPPoE fiber link (actual hits 81/37). Though that is well below the typical point where most routers fall down with PPPoE.

 

[theedge]

No, neither of my ISPs uses PPPoE. The main fiber connection is IPoA and the backup DSL is IPoE. So both wans are set to "Obtain an IP automatically"

Funny that you mention TP-LINK routers. I was hesitating between the RV320 and the TL-ER 6120 and the deciding factor was the superior max throughput of the RV320 (900 vs 350 Mbps). If TP-LINK really delivers what he claims it might in the end be a much better choice

 

[azazel1024]

Maybe give Cisco a call at this point then?

 

[theedge]

Yep I wish it was as easy as just giving a call Already tried several times : either it doesn't work or no staff is available. So in the meantime I tried the online chat it was interrupted a few minutes after I got a case number. Great. But when I try to connect to view my case I'm told I have to buy a Cisco support contract...

 

[Antonio Valentini]

I just put a 8-Port Switch between the modem and the RV320 (WAN ) and it worked perfectly! I think it's something LAN negotiation between devices

 

[coxhaus]

If you can manually set the values on the WAN port and modem I would try setting both at a gig full duplex. I have seen where automatic setting will not work well and matching them manually they work fine. Whenever I have used QOS on a router it has degraded the performance a little. It is a hit you take when traffic shaping.

 

[System Error Message]

It sounds to me like you've hit the processing limit of the RV320. The cisco RV series and consumer routers are very similar in design that in order to achieve rated WAN performance you have to disable a lot of things. The limitation of hardware NAT means giving up a lot of features.

Getting 130Mb/s doesnt mean not using a 1Gb/s port. It could also be a firmware issue. Ive used software based routers and never regretted it since since they give more consistent performance.

I normally use QoS in priority mode and it works well for me but i dont use a cisco RV. Does it let you select different types of packet processing? You can verify the problem by testing between 2 computers with the cisco RV in between doing the routing. It could be that the model you have just isnt fast enough.