Choosing new router (based on my devices)

[beedee]

Dear SmallNetBuilders,

I'm about to upgrade my (old) router to something a bit more up to date. While I don't mind spending a good amount on doing so, I don't want to buy more than I need. I currently live in a medium-sized appartment (107 sqm / 1151 sqft) with about half the walls being concrete. I need to have my router in a corner of the apartment in a room with concrete walls.

My current situation and needs:
Below is a simple plan of my apartment:

   +------------------------------------------+------------------------+
   |                                          | (2)                    |
   |                                          |                        |
   |                                          |                        |
   |                Room 1                    |                        |
   |                                          |                        |
   |                                          |                        |
   |                                          |                        |
   |           (1)                            |                        |
   +=======================+===     ===+======+================     ===+
   |    (3)                |           |                               |
   |                       |           |                               |
   |                       |                                           |
   |                       |                                           |
   |                                   |                        (4)    |
   |                                   +-------------------+           |
   |                       |           |                   |           |
   +---------------+-------+           |                   |           |
   |               |       |           |                   |           |
   |                                                       |           |
   |               |       |           |                   |           |
   +=================     =+===      ==+===================+=    ======+
   |    (5)  [Router]      |                               |           |
   |                       |                               |           |
   |                       |                               |           |
   |                       |                               |           |
   |                       |                               |           |
   |                       |                               |           |
   +-----------------------+                               +-----------+

All outer walls and walls with === are concrete.

Numbers indicate devices:
1) PS3 (2nd generation), WiiU and MacBook Air (A1370, acting as PLEX client).
2) PC with 3 stream N capability.
3) PC with 2 stream N capability
4) Frequent use of laptops with B/G, 2- and 3-stream N is frequently used.
5) iMac and NAS, wired connection (together file and media server for all clients)
Room 1 has the same usage as (4)

Apart from listed devices 3 iPhone 5's, 1 iPhone 4 and 2 Third Generation iPads are frequently used.

I currently have the 2nd generation AirPort Extreme router (A1143), this fails to deliver acceptable performance to (2) and performance to (1) is mostly slow but acceptable, although many times worse than so. Performance to other devices are acceptable, but improvement would be much appreciated.

I'd like to stream 1080p streams with bitrates up to 40 Mbit/s to the MacBook Air at (1). I'm not sure of it's wireless capabilities, but I believe it has 2 stream N (any info regarding this would be much appreciated). Currently, it's struggling with anything over 8 Mbit/s. I'd also like my laptop with 3 stream N as well as the computer (2) to be able to use the NAS and media server with good performance (i.e. being able to stream HD content and transfer large files at an acceptable rate).

It's also of great importance that the wired connection truly is 1Gbps since there is heavy traffic between the iMac and the NAS.

Routers I've been looking at:
If I understand the current situation properly, there's no harm in waiting 1-2 years with buying 802.11ac since current support is limited and it's possible that the standard changes.

I'm also wondering about internal vs. external antennae. From what I've found, there's no difference - is this true?

Asus RT-N66U

From what I can find, this seems to be the "best there is" at the moment. Everything seems good, but I don't know if I need it. I'm also a bit unsure on how well it would handle sending signals through multiple concrete walls compared to the others. I looked at the AC version too, but I don't see the need (see above)​

Asus RT-N56U

Only 2 stream if I'm not mistaken. Test speeds seems to be good however, so I'm unsure if I'll notice the speed differences compared to the N66U.​

Linksys EA4500

Same price, seems to be inferior to the Asus, although I've always liked Cisco/Linksys.​

Linksys EA3500

Much cheaper, but still good speeds. Will I notice the speed difference?​

Netgear R6300

High price, low functionality. Don't really like it.​

Questions:
I haven't been able to find out much about my current router, so I don't know what kind of improvement I can expect from this upgrade. I'm pretty sure that my current router only can operate a single band - so I guess I'll see a performance upgrade there. But I don't know how many streams it supports.

Except for answers on the questions in the text above, I'd love a recommendation on what router to buy. Please feel free to give advice on routers that I haven't mentioned as well. I usually like to buy "the best", but I don't want to waste my money. Of the things above, wired performance and good performance with high bitrate 1080p streaming is most important. If you think I need to change the (main) client for streaming media (MacBook Air) to something else, or perhaps use a USB wireless card - I'd love to know.

I'd like to thank you for any answers in advance.

--beedee

 

[remixedcat]

Out of all of those pick one where you can upgrade the antennas or be able to use a range extender/repeater if you want to keep your existing router.

If you must get a new router The Amped Wireless R20000G has excellent coverage and has 600mw amplification to penetrate through those concrete walls of yours. I have this router and I was able to stream HD 1080p videos 200 some feet away with no buffering at all whatsoever. This is through 5 walls and outside, down the road, with lots of other APs nearby.

Performance has been fantastic with it as well... I barely have to think about it.

 

[devnull]

A superpowered access point may or may not fix your problems.

Some testing can be done to evaluate the performance of the current system.

iperf is a popular free program for bandwidth testing. I'm pretty sure there's a version for mac. I know there are versions of it for windows and linux.

A guide for iperf was posted on smallnetbuilder.com
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30388-measuring-network-performance-iperf

If you have two windows laptops you can use the tools here:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanw...ur-network-five-ways-to-measure-network-speed

Test using different computers and locations.

Do a test over wireless in the same room as the access point for a baseline for testing other areas.

Your issues with wireless might not be your access point at all. It may be the clients. Clients tend to have much lower output power than the access point. This usually works well enough because the clients send much less data than the access point sends to the clients. If the clients can't always get a signal through to acknowledge the server, then the available bandwidth drops.

Even desktop PCs have this problem because the wireless antenna is usually behind the computer and down low on the ground. If you can move the antenna higher up then you can usually get better results.

 

[beedee]

A superpowered access point may or may not fix your problems.

Some testing can be done to evaluate the performance of the current system.

iperf is a popular free program for bandwidth testing. I'm pretty sure there's a version for mac. I know there are versions of it for windows and linux.

A guide for iperf was posted on smallnetbuilder.com
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30388-measuring-network-performance-iperf

If you have two windows laptops you can use the tools here:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanw...ur-network-five-ways-to-measure-network-speed

Test using different computers and locations.

Do a test over wireless in the same room as the access point for a baseline for testing other areas.

Your issues with wireless might not be your access point at all. It may be the clients. Clients tend to have much lower output power than the access point. This usually works well enough because the clients send much less data than the access point sends to the clients. If the clients can't always get a signal through to acknowledge the server, then the available bandwidth drops.

Even desktop PCs have this problem because the wireless antenna is usually behind the computer and down low on the ground. If you can move the antenna higher up then you can usually get better results.

I'll do the tests with iperf as soon as I get home.

I get that clients can be the problem, but I guess that would mostly be for the computer at location (2). The MacBook Air in (1) generally has good connectivity, although the network speed is generally too slow for streaming high-bitrate HD content. Would the lower power of the client affect the streaming performance much?

Performance with my current router seems to be affected much by the number of connected clients. Could that be the router's wireless capabilities that fails or simply interference that's the issue?

 

[beedee]

Out of all of those pick one where you can upgrade the antennas or be able to use a range extender/repeater if you want to keep your existing router.

If you must get a new router The Amped Wireless R20000G has excellent coverage and has 600mw amplification to penetrate through those concrete walls of yours. I have this router and I was able to stream HD 1080p videos 200 some feet away with no buffering at all whatsoever. This is through 5 walls and outside, down the road, with lots of other APs nearby.

Performance has been fantastic with it as well... I barely have to think about it.

At the moment I only want to get a new router, but I will HAVE to get one at the end of summer. I've been looking at the R20000G, although I haven't found it in any store that is nearby or that has resonably-priced shipping to Sweden.

 

[remixedcat]

You can order direct from Amped

 

[devnull]

I'll do the tests with iperf as soon as I get home.

I get that clients can be the problem, but I guess that would mostly be for the computer at location (2). The MacBook Air in (1) generally has good connectivity, although the network speed is generally too slow for streaming high-bitrate HD content. Would the lower power of the client affect the streaming performance much?

Performance with my current router seems to be affected much by the number of connected clients. Could that be the router's wireless capabilities that fails or simply interference that's the issue?

A) Yes it could. When network nodes communicate, they send a lot of messages that indicate a successful receipt of data. When these acknowledgements are interrupted, it's assumed that the transmission was not successful. In this case the transmission is repeated until it's acknowledged or a timer runs out. We observe this phenomenon as a "slow network". This can happen regardless of the speed that the wireless network has negotiated.

Note that I said "network nodes" and not "servers and clients". I meant that to indicate that the acknowledgements i refer to are part of the OSI model layer 1 and 2 protocols. "Streaming" applies to the upper layers of the OSI model and doesn't govern any layer 1 or 2 functions.

B) It could be either. You can test this using multiple clients running iperf to one server.

It could be interference from wifi outside of your unit. The wifi 2.4Ghz frequency band is pretty small, and the only channels that don't share frequency space are 1, 6 and 11. You can use a program called inssider to see which channels are in use around you and how much transmission power is reaching inside your apartment. Changing your wifi channel might help a lot because most wifi access points default to channel 6 and are never changed.

Note that interference from active wifi depends on how much other people are using the wifi channel. If they're just web browsing they won't cause much interference. If they're streaming video, they will cause a lot of interference.

You may be better off setting your wireless access point to one common wifi "mode" if you aren't already. If all wireless clients support 802.11n, set the access point to n-only. If one client only supports 802.11g, set the access point to g-only.

 

[CaptainSTX]

Concrete Walls

I live in a home with solid interior concrete block walls.

In the room where my ASUS is my signal strength is -45 Db using 2.4 Ghz on channel 11. Through one concrete wall the strength drops to -60 and through two walls the strength is -77.

Using 5 Ghz is only possible in the same room where the router is.

There is a reason they build fall out shelters using concrete.

 

[beedee]

You may be better off setting your wireless access point to one common wifi "mode" if you aren't already. If all wireless clients support 802.11n, set the access point to n-only. If one client only supports 802.11g, set the access point to g-only.

For some odd reason, it's not possible to select g-only with the A1143 and current firmware, choices are:

• 802.11n (802.11b/g compatible)
• 802.11n only (2.4 GHz)
• 802.11n (802.11a compatible)
• 802.11n only (5GHz)

Since I do have a few g devices i guess I have to stick with the first option. I have tried using n only before to use the 5Ghz band, but I didn't notice any improvement during that short time.

---

I ran iperf with my MacBook (having Broadcom BCM4331) with the following results, 2 runs on each location directly after the first run:
Control (6 feet from router): 62.9 Mbit/sec, 67.0 Mbit/sec
Location 1: 23.9 Mbit/sec, 27.2 Mbit/sec
Location 2: 13.5 Mbit/sec, 8.32 Mbit/sec
Location 4: 22.6 Mbit/sec, 13.1 Mbit/sec

I also ran it with my MacBook Air (the one acting as PLEX client at location 1):
32.8 Mbit/sec, 29.9 Mbit/sec

Running the MacBook Air at location 1 at the same time as the MacBook mentioned above 6 feet from the router generated this results:
Run 1 - Location 1: 21.9 Mbit/sec, 6 ft from router: 15.1 Mbit/sec
Run 2 - Location 1: 12.9 Mbit/sec, 6 ft from router: 36.2 Mbit/sec

Thus, performance seems unreliable when two clients are using it at the same time.

I will continue testing with more clients. Note that 5 clients were connected during the tests above, the ones not tested remaining "idle".

 

[devnull]

Forgot to mention (I thought it would be explained in the iperf article) that the iperf in client mode is the one that sends the data, so testing should be done with the server node in the remote location.

 

[beedee]

Forgot to mention (I thought it would be explained in the iperf article) that the iperf in client mode is the one that sends the data, so testing should be done with the server node in the remote location.

Oh, I see. Will do that. But how can I test servers simultaneously?

 

[devnull]

With two instances of terminal on the client.

It would be prudent to add "-t 30" to the iperf command to increase the test time to 30 seconds.

Increasing the length of the sample will improve the verisimilitude of the test since there will be a delay while you enter the second iperf client command.

 

[beedee]

So I did some more "iperfing" with running iperf in server mode on the clients. Iperf was run with "-t 30".

Running it simultaneously on three devices generated the following results (locations according to map in original post in parenthesis):
(1): 8, 10 10
(4): 5, 3, 3
(5): 23, 22, 20

Two locations simultaneously:
(1): 8
(4): 5

One location at a time (directly after each other):
(1): 16
(4): 16
(5): 66

Client (1) and (4) being 2x2, (5) being 3x3. Router is only one channel (2,4 Ghz.)

So, all in all, performance seems to be taking too much of a hit from multiple clients using the wireless at the same time.

I guess this boils down to these questions:
A) Will a new/better router handle multiple connections better?
B) Will a 3 stream router significantly improve short range performance to the 3 stream client?
C) Will a dual channel router significantly improve performance overall?
D) Will a high-power router be more suitable for my needs?

 

[stevech]

No doubt, you realize that n client devices are sharing a fixed amount of capacity in the WiFi channel. That capacity can be optimized with good signal strength in the client-to-WiFi-Router direction, and with simultaneous transfers so the available air time has little unused time.

You could increase capacity by adding one or more WiFi access points and put these on different non-overlapping channels (1, 6 or 11 in 2.4GHz). The coverage from these APs and the WiFi router might intentionally overlap, as need be, by where the client devices are located.

 

[beedee]

No doubt, you realize that n client devices are sharing a fixed amount of capacity in the WiFi channel. That capacity can be optimized with good signal strength in the client-to-WiFi-Router direction, and with simultaneous transfers so the available air time has little unused time.

You could increase capacity by adding one or more WiFi access points and put these on different non-overlapping channels (1, 6 or 11 in 2.4GHz). The coverage from these APs and the WiFi router might intentionally overlap, as need be, by where the client devices are located.

Could the capacity be increased by exchanging my current router for another one as well. I get that several APs would be better, but I probably won't have my current router (since I'm only borrowing it) so I'm gonna have to buy a new router anyway. I guess I still have the option to get a router and an extra AP if I buy a cheaper router, but if the same and/or better performance can be achieved with one unit I'd rather have just one.

So, let's say I have ~$150 to spend on a new wireless setup in my home (keeping my current router not an option), what would be the best thing(s) to buy?

 

[stevech]

changing router brand names (assuming you don't have junk) won't make a large difference, unless you're changing from, say, 11g to 11n. And the clients are 11n.

On what to buy: let's look at your coverage requirements: 1 or 2 story, sq. ft. to be covered, kinds of client devices, and if you expect to do more than simple YouTube type streaming via WiFi.
Most people need nothing more than 11g for portable devices; some with larger/2-story homes need to add an Access Point connected via cat5, MoCA or HomePlug.

 

[beedee]

changing router brand names (assuming you don't have junk) won't make a large difference, unless you're changing from, say, 11g to 11n. And the clients are 11n.

On what to buy: let's look at your coverage requirements: 1 or 2 story, sq. ft. to be covered, kinds of client devices, and if you expect to do more than simple YouTube type streaming via WiFi.
Most people need nothing more than 11g for portable devices; some with larger/2-story homes need to add an Access Point connected via cat5, MoCA or HomePlug.

Most of this is already in the thread, but here goes:

What I have is the 2nd generation AirPort Extreme (A1143) that is draft N and can run 2,4 or 5 Ghz but not simultaneously. The property to cover is 1151 sqft with several concrete walls. You can see the layout in the original post.

Most clients, except my PS3, are N. Most of them are 2x2, the main client is 3x3.

There will be 3-6 devices using the connection at any given time doing "light stuff" - web browsing, YouTube and similar.

1 client, with 2x2 N, will be doing heavier streaming of, mostly, HD content up to a bitrate of up to 36 Mbit/s. (The other clients has to be usable at the same time.)

 

[stevech]

36Mbps streaming is huge. More than 1080i, maybe more than 1080p blueray, not sure. At that bit rate, if you do use that, I'd use wired cat5, MoCA or Powerline rather than WiFi, unless your WiFi range is quite short and near line of sight.

 

[devnull]

After doing a bit of testing on my own, I can't get high bitrate HD video to play over 802.11g. The cause of which should be clear from your testing. It works well over 802.11n 5ghz. I might take the time to test over 802.11n 2.4ghz later.

So my answer to your overall question is that you'll not be able to achieve your goals for $150. There's ways to make this work for most if not all of your devices, but $150 certainly won't cut it. Along with a wifi router, you'd need to upgrade the wifi cards in the laptops, as well as add a hard-wire solution for your desktops and PS3.

Also I'd bet you'd need more than one wifi access point to handle multiple clients. Some sources say that 802.11n 2.4ghz can handle one HD stream.

It might work better if you transcode your video files to a lower resolution and bitrate.

I have a large collection of HD video in MPEG2 and transcoding to MPEG4 h.264 reduces the size nearly 75% with almost no loss of quality.