How much router throughput is really needed?

[brucew268]

I'm running 38Mbps fibre modem to a no-name router in router mode only which passes off the a Netgear GS108 switch which handles a Wireless AP and a few Ethernet streaming devices.

So since my Ethernet traffic between devices is handled by the switch, and Ethernet to WAN is limited by the fibre modem (which is 100Mbps, not Gigabit)... do I really gain anything by getting a router with 350Mbps WAN>LAN throughput and 30k connections instead of 94Mbps WAN>LAN and 11k connections?

I've read the article on using separate components for modem, router, switch and AP. But being non-technical in networking I don't know what purpose the router performs except to handoff between switch traffic and the modem, which is limited to less than 100Mbps. I am only using one port of the router, since I hand everything off to the switch.

 

[sfx2000]

Sounds like your setup is doing ok - if things are working well enough, I'm not seeing a big benefit to adding/replacing stuff if your needs are simple.

 

[L&LD]

I think you would. But whether you would appreciate or even notice it is the question only you can answer (by buying, testing and comparing to what you currently have).

To put this in perspective, I have an RT-AC68U which was an upgrade for an RT-N66U (800MHz dual core processor vs. 600MHz single core, respectively). My ISP connection is also fibre (105D/23U, limited with Adaptive QoS, raw ISP speeds are closer to 120D/40U) which indicates that either of those two routers should have the ability to power my network sufficiently. Yet, in actual use, the RT-AC68U is noticeably the much more responsive and superior option for my networking needs. And most telling (of the possible performance and responsiveness left on the table, even by the RT-AC68U), when using the full ISP speeds (either upload or download) the first and even the second cores are using 100% and over 40%, respectively.

This is enough 'proof' to me that even the RT-AC68U with an 'up-to' 754.5Mbps WAN to LAN and 824.6Mbps LAN to WAN throughput ratings is not enough for even my much slower ISP connection (about 16% of the theoretical download capabilities and about 3% upload. Yes 3%, not a mistype).

And I feel you may have an additional potential bottleneck with the way your network is implemented (assuming your 'no name' router has at least 4x 1GbE LAN ports or more available).

If you have any devices that do not interact (intensely, 'throughput') with the rest of the devices on the network (for example, a printer or a smart TV and particularly the AP, if most network usage is internet based rather than internal, LAN based), I would be plugging those in directly to the 'no name' routers ports you have available now. The rest of the devices that actually interact with each other (PC's, laptops, a NAS, etc.) should be left on the GS108 switch. You will also have to decide how the wireless devices interact too with the rest of the devices on the network and take that into consideration when (and if) you decide to reconfigure your network for the total highest performance possible.

Opinion; if your fibre modem is offering you anything like my fibre connection offers in terms of latency (1ms in my case), then your current setup is more than likely limiting your networks performance and responsiveness.

Whether that is enough for you to spend actual money to fix the issue is not a question that can be answered on a forum though. A day of testing and comparing to current equipment is what is needed.

With some of my customers, even being shown that their network is working more fluidly is not enough. They still decide to continue using the old equipment even when the current generation of equipment was shown as obviously better (everyone's threshold of 'better' is different).

 

[System Error Message]

you dont need to worry about memory. Router throughput needed is actually on packets per second but most packets are around 1500 bytes. So add up both your upload and download and it would give you your required throughput.

Other than features you dont gain anything from a router with faster throughput. Think about what you will be using on the router and the throughput you need as that determines the CPU you need on it and other things. @L&LD try routerOS on x86, you will see it use very little RAM that even 1GB is plenty unless you use BGP or decide to use proxy with ram as cache or have a massive DNS cache.

Some routers can be new and less responsive like the bt homehub 5 which has terrible latency, drops a packet every now and than and redirects my web surfing to the setup wizard every once in a while and that has AC1900 with dual core broadcom/lantiq. So make sure you get yourself a decent router like asus or netgear.

 

[L&LD]

you dont need to worry about memory. Router throughput needed is actually on packets per second but most packets are around 1500 bytes. So add up both your upload and download and it would give you your required throughput.

Other than features you dont gain anything from a router with faster throughput. Think about what you will be using on the router and the throughput you need as that determines the CPU you need on it and other things. @L&LD try routerOS on x86, you will see it use very little RAM that even 1GB is plenty unless you use BGP or decide to use proxy with ram as cache or have a massive DNS cache.

Some routers can be new and less responsive like the bt homehub 5 which has terrible latency, drops a packet every now and than and redirects my web surfing to the setup wizard every once in a while and that has AC1900 with dual core broadcom/lantiq. So make sure you get yourself a decent router like asus or netgear.

Nobody asked about memory or ram here?

But it seems we both agree that a current generation router could be a better option for the op.

 

[sfx2000]

Nobody asked about memory or ram here?

But it seems we both agree that a current generation router could be a better option for the op.

Folks know my thoughts on Memory/RAM - and we have that ongoing thread...

For OP - if his network is working well enough for his needs - then why throw money at a problem that doesn't need to be asked?

 

[L&LD]

Folks know my thoughts on Memory/RAM - and we have that ongoing thread...

For OP - if his network is working well enough for his needs - then why throw money at a problem that doesn't need to be asked?

Yes, the ram we agree with (more is always better).

For the other point; I gave my reasons in my post above. I knew I would see some difference (from customers' RT-AC68U's I had used), but didn't know it would be that apparent on my actual network. Again I want to emphasis that I feel I will see a bigger apparent increase in network responsiveness if I could afford an RT-AC3100, RT-AC88U or an RT-AC5300 to compare against (because of the 40% faster processors and double the ram those latest routers offer). When a core is pegged at 100% and a second core at over 40% simply downloading at less than 16% of the hardware's 'theoretical' performance, I know some responsiveness is being left on the table by 'settling' for the RT-AC68U with my current ISP speeds.

I had already planned and budgeted for the RT-AC68U (for a very long time). But if I had performed a direct comparison 'blind', I think I would have 'approved' the purchase, on the spot. Not only did the network seem more responsive (LAN and WAN), but the computers themselves.

I understand to not throw money needlessly. But saving a few dollars sometimes hurts us more.

 

[sfx2000]

So since my Ethernet traffic between devices is handled by the switch, and Ethernet to WAN is limited by the fibre modem (which is 100Mbps, not Gigabit)... do I really gain anything by getting a router with 350Mbps WAN>LAN throughput and 30k connections instead of 94Mbps WAN>LAN and 11k connections?

I've read the article on using separate components for modem, router, switch and AP. But being non-technical in networking I don't know what purpose the router performs except to handoff between switch traffic and the modem, which is limited to less than 100Mbps. I am only using one port of the router, since I hand everything off to the switch.

I'll reply again, because I was pretty high level before...

1) It depends on the number of clients on the network, and the intended use cases - for most home networks "today", let's say 25 clients or less, then you'll probably be good where you're at - any router can do the bandwidth, the real draw is the number of concurrent sessions and NAT states - so you might be ok where you are...

Many of those "no-name" routers aren't that much different that the mainstream with regards to routing, as they all generally use the same software from a chipset vendor.

2) Breaking things out - again, it does come down to skill levels and needs - I'm not the norm, and yes, I do break out routing from switching from wireless to the network attached storage - and this is a heck of an investment in time and equipment, more than most folks would consider -

I also am a telecommuter, and networking is what I do in the day job, and I can afford it. Like I might have mentioned earlier, I'm massively overbuilt, but this is stuff I do every day, and it's fairly tuned... and I leave it alone for the most part, lol...

So one can toss a lot of money, time, and resources at things, but generally, considering OP's post, he might be fine where he is...

 

[brucew268]

Well enough? Yes, I suppose I don;t have any real problems. But I was a bit underwhelmed a couple years ago when I moved to fibre. The speed tests said that my 38Mbps was delivering a good bit more than that, but my internet traffic sure didn't feel much faster. I've have assumed that I'm probably being held back with latency issues or just rubbish routing capabilities. So i've considered a £20 Linksys E1200 flashed with DD-WRT used only as wired router. Or bump up to a TP-LINK TL-R600VPN. Both still fairly low on the totem pole, but my needs aren't great, even though both my wife and I office from our home. L&LD I do take your point about results that can be a bit under/over what the numbers might predict.

Perhaps I should check out some of the testing software reviewed to see if that will put numbers to my experience, without putting too much into it.

 

[brucew268]

Speedtest.net says 71Mbps down and 18.7 Mbps up 12ms ping rate... paying for 38Mbps. My wife and I each tend to have 6-12 browser tabs open all day, Outlook checking three email addresses, streaming music on each laptop. So 12 ms doesn't sound so bad, nor does 71Mbps down. Upload seems a little low, but we don't send large files too often. As a newbie these numbers don't look bad, even though my perceived latency would suggest a much higher number.

 

[sfx2000]

Speedtest.net says 71Mbps down and 18.7 Mbps up 12ms ping rate... paying for 38Mbps. My wife and I each tend to have 6-12 browser tabs open all day, Outlook checking three email addresses, streaming music on each laptop. So 12 ms doesn't sound so bad, nor does 71Mbps down. Upload seems a little low, but we don't send large files too often. As a newbie these numbers don't look bad, even though my perceived latency would suggest a much higher number.

They look pretty good actually... not seeing any problems here.

 

[TonyH]

Nobody asked about memory or ram here?

But it seems we both agree that a current generation router could be a better option for the op.

Right. When I do something, I start with little more than what I need. Simply 4K UHD streaming is smooth, no one in the family(network users) complains, I just leave it as is. I don't like anything OK on the border line.