If I remember correctly, @thiggins once mentioned that WMM APSD had to be enabled for full throughput, so your results look normal to me.
Potential problem RT-AC68U (originally TM-AC1900) and WiFi driver 6.37.14.126
- Thread starter sirwifi
- Start date
If I remember correctly, @thiggins once mentioned that WMM APSD had to be enabled for full throughput, so your results look normal to me.
Welcome to the world of wifi, where two persons will report exact opposite results. That's why I generally no longer bother investigating reports of "this driver is slower", because for each of them, there's an equal "this driver is faster for me".
Wifi is highly dependent on one's environment, especially the clients used. My tablet's Mediatek can't stay connected to high 5 GHz channels, but I have zero issue with Intel, Qualcomm and Broadcom-based clients.
dlandiss
Very Senior Member
May I add that the results of single tests should not be trusted? WiFi being what it is; with changes due to reflections, local interference, the phase of the moon
, etc; a number of identical tests should be run. Throw out the outliers (best and worst) and average the rest.If the tests were in a situation needing certification a regular statistical analysis would be needed but the above should suffice in casual situations. Single tests are merely anecdotes.
ColinTaylor
Part of the Furniture
jrmwvu04
Very Senior Member
iPerf3 3.1.7 is available on entware-ng
I thought it was fun to participate in the testing for academic reasons, but ultimately I had already made my mind up a long time ago about some of this stuff. Practical usefulness is really the important metric to me. So like the thing about using a laptop on battery affecting the results of a test - ok, but that's how I'm going to actually use it: on a laptop, that isn't plugged in. So it doesn't matter what results you get if they're not "real world". I think it's a lot like the threads on here about cpu temperatures. People maybe worry too much about the numbers and the specs. And if you want to, that's fine. What matters to me, at the end of the day, is "does it work?" and having done all the tinkering I've done over the years, mine does.
FreshJR
Very Senior Member
You may have a hardware defect, or just the two wifi cards are incompatible. This is ran on TM-AC1900 flashed to 380.67
I got flawless 4 runs in a row a fair distance away from the router (~60ft distance, 4 wall separation, down a story of stairs). I can post router settings if you want because I know i changed two settings (think it was airtime fairness and some WMM setting)
2.4ghz results (far distance)
2.4ghz results (short distance)
As expected when I got closer jitter drops and speeds go up. laptop wifi card is only capable of 300mbps on 2.4ghz at 40mhz bandwidth. I can bump actual throughput to an achievable ~200 out of the 300 link rate.
Iperf settings used: iperf3 -c <host ip> -u -b 100M
Router 2.4ghz settings: https://s26.postimg.org/an7y7gvwp/settings.png
Temps: 50 / 50 / 80 (currently few *C lower than normal)
Hardware rev: Wasn't on serial, where did you read this information?
----------------
But ipref also confirms what I have been experiencing. My 5ghz band is, for lack of a better word, fracked.
On 5ghz I get a BUNCH of these
and a variable amount of packet loss 2%-40% depending on distance. I do not want to derail the thread, but is that normal? I think packet loss is normal since I know 5ghz has poor wall penetration, but whats with the out of order packets. Sometimes 0% and no OUT OF ORDER is possible on 5ghz while close but thats not the norm. Doesn't matter to me, I only use 5ghz for large nas file transfers, and its got some insane throughput even with packet loss.
---------------
I know the other firmware gave you good results, but try re screwing the antennas back in. I don't really like ASUS's mechanical connection design. It's a slip plastic ring, so you have to squeeze it really hard to get a firm connection while tightening. If you don't, the plastic ring will just rotate instead of building tension. This connection may be intended to not over tighten, but I like a firmer mechanical connection.
I got flawless 4 runs in a row a fair distance away from the router (~60ft distance, 4 wall separation, down a story of stairs). I can post router settings if you want because I know i changed two settings (think it was airtime fairness and some WMM setting)
2.4ghz results (far distance)
Code:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.2.192, port 50281
[ 5] local 192.168.2.194 port 5201 connected to 192.168.2.192 port 63605
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.01 sec 5.88 MBytes 49.1 Mbits/sec 1.208 ms 0/753 (0%)
[ 5] 1.01-2.00 sec 6.76 MBytes 56.8 Mbits/sec 1.707 ms 0/865 (0%)
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 6.74 MBytes 56.7 Mbits/sec 1.708 ms 0/863 (0%)
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 7.08 MBytes 59.4 Mbits/sec 1.360 ms 0/906 (0%)
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 6.53 MBytes 54.9 Mbits/sec 1.184 ms 0/836 (0%)
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 6.45 MBytes 54.1 Mbits/sec 1.529 ms 0/826 (0%)
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 7.02 MBytes 59.0 Mbits/sec 1.268 ms 0/899 (0%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 7.05 MBytes 59.0 Mbits/sec 1.535 ms 0/902 (0%)
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 6.41 MBytes 53.6 Mbits/sec 1.764 ms 0/820 (0%)
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 6.59 MBytes 55.4 Mbits/sec 1.403 ms 0/843 (0%)
[ 5] 10.00-10.09 sec 608 KBytes 58.0 Mbits/sec 1.757 ms 0/76 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-10.09 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 1.757 ms 0/8589 (0%)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.2.192, port 50283
[ 5] local 192.168.2.194 port 5201 connected to 192.168.2.192 port 64167
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.01 sec 5.86 MBytes 48.8 Mbits/sec 1.371 ms 0/750 (0%)
[ 5] 1.01-2.00 sec 6.96 MBytes 58.7 Mbits/sec 1.217 ms 0/891 (0%)
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 6.80 MBytes 57.0 Mbits/sec 1.660 ms 0/871 (0%)
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 6.10 MBytes 51.3 Mbits/sec 1.393 ms 0/781 (0%)
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 6.70 MBytes 56.2 Mbits/sec 1.137 ms 0/858 (0%)
[ 5] 5.00-6.01 sec 6.80 MBytes 56.6 Mbits/sec 1.212 ms 0/870 (0%)
[ 5] 6.01-7.00 sec 6.46 MBytes 54.7 Mbits/sec 1.039 ms 0/827 (0%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 6.81 MBytes 57.1 Mbits/sec 1.123 ms 0/872 (0%)
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 6.87 MBytes 57.4 Mbits/sec 1.329 ms 0/879 (0%)
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 6.80 MBytes 57.3 Mbits/sec 1.293 ms 0/870 (0%)
[ 5] 10.00-10.09 sec 680 KBytes 65.4 Mbits/sec 1.221 ms 0/85 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-10.09 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 1.221 ms 0/8554 (0%)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.2.192, port 50295
[ 5] local 192.168.2.194 port 5201 connected to 192.168.2.192 port 64168
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 4.65 MBytes 39.0 Mbits/sec 1.986 ms 0/595 (0%)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 5.13 MBytes 43.1 Mbits/sec 1.929 ms 0/657 (0%)
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 6.17 MBytes 51.8 Mbits/sec 1.473 ms 0/790 (0%)
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 5.84 MBytes 49.0 Mbits/sec 2.189 ms 0/747 (0%)
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 5.51 MBytes 46.1 Mbits/sec 1.748 ms 0/705 (0%)
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 5.11 MBytes 42.9 Mbits/sec 3.483 ms 0/654 (0%)
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 5.34 MBytes 44.8 Mbits/sec 1.845 ms 0/683 (0%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 5.62 MBytes 47.1 Mbits/sec 1.322 ms 0/719 (0%)
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 6.13 MBytes 51.3 Mbits/sec 2.080 ms 0/785 (0%)
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 5.96 MBytes 50.2 Mbits/sec 1.507 ms 0/763 (0%)
[ 5] 10.00-10.10 sec 584 KBytes 49.4 Mbits/sec 1.810 ms 0/73 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-10.10 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 1.810 ms 0/7171 (0%)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.2.192, port 50297
[ 5] local 192.168.2.194 port 5201 connected to 192.168.2.192 port 52449
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 5.41 MBytes 45.4 Mbits/sec 1.330 ms 0/693 (0%)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 6.45 MBytes 54.2 Mbits/sec 1.050 ms 0/826 (0%)
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 7.20 MBytes 60.3 Mbits/sec 1.312 ms 0/921 (0%)
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 6.74 MBytes 56.6 Mbits/sec 1.371 ms 0/863 (0%)
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 5.62 MBytes 47.2 Mbits/sec 1.155 ms 0/720 (0%)
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 6.01 MBytes 50.4 Mbits/sec 2.428 ms 0/769 (0%)
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 5.19 MBytes 43.5 Mbits/sec 1.547 ms 0/664 (0%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 6.18 MBytes 51.8 Mbits/sec 1.480 ms 0/791 (0%)
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 5.08 MBytes 42.6 Mbits/sec 3.790 ms 0/650 (0%)
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 6.79 MBytes 56.9 Mbits/sec 1.335 ms 0/869 (0%)
[ 5] 10.00-10.09 sec 608 KBytes 55.9 Mbits/sec 1.291 ms 0/76 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-10.09 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 1.291 ms 0/7842 (0%)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 52012.4ghz results (short distance)
Code:
Accepted connection from 192.168.2.192, port 50690
[ 5] local 192.168.2.194 port 5201 connected to 192.168.2.192 port 58449
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 11.0 MBytes 92.6 Mbits/sec 0.280 ms 0/1413 (0%)
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 12.1 MBytes 102 Mbits/sec 0.139 ms 0/1554 (0%)
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 11.4 MBytes 95.5 Mbits/sec 0.263 ms 0/1458 (0%)
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 12.1 MBytes 101 Mbits/sec 0.145 ms 0/1547 (0%)
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 12.3 MBytes 103 Mbits/sec 0.163 ms 0/1570 (0%)
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.5 MBytes 96.8 Mbits/sec 0.431 ms 0/1478 (0%)
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 12.3 MBytes 103 Mbits/sec 0.418 ms 0/1573 (0%)
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 11.4 MBytes 95.6 Mbits/sec 0.174 ms 0/1460 (0%)
[ 5] 8.00-9.02 sec 12.1 MBytes 100 Mbits/sec 0.085 ms 0/1552 (0%)
[ 5] 9.02-10.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 102 Mbits/sec 0.114 ms 0/1526 (0%)
[ 5] 10.00-10.06 sec 912 KBytes 119 Mbits/sec 0.792 ms 0/114 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-10.06 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0.792 ms 0/15245 (0%)As expected when I got closer jitter drops and speeds go up. laptop wifi card is only capable of 300mbps on 2.4ghz at 40mhz bandwidth. I can bump actual throughput to an achievable ~200 out of the 300 link rate.
Iperf settings used: iperf3 -c <host ip> -u -b 100M
Router 2.4ghz settings: https://s26.postimg.org/an7y7gvwp/settings.png
Temps: 50 / 50 / 80 (currently few *C lower than normal)
Hardware rev: Wasn't on serial, where did you read this information?
----------------
But ipref also confirms what I have been experiencing. My 5ghz band is, for lack of a better word, fracked.
On 5ghz I get a BUNCH of these
Code:
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 7 and received packet = 8 AND SP = 5
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 10 and received packet = 11 AND SP = 5
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 13 and received packet = 19 AND SP = 5and a variable amount of packet loss 2%-40% depending on distance. I do not want to derail the thread, but is that normal? I think packet loss is normal since I know 5ghz has poor wall penetration, but whats with the out of order packets. Sometimes 0% and no OUT OF ORDER is possible on 5ghz while close but thats not the norm. Doesn't matter to me, I only use 5ghz for large nas file transfers, and its got some insane throughput even with packet loss.
---------------
I know the other firmware gave you good results, but try re screwing the antennas back in. I don't really like ASUS's mechanical connection design. It's a slip plastic ring, so you have to squeeze it really hard to get a firm connection while tightening. If you don't, the plastic ring will just rotate instead of building tension. This connection may be intended to not over tighten, but I like a firmer mechanical connection.
Last edited:
strangeluck
Regular Contributor
Not to beat a dead horse, but I re-enabled WMM APSD and ran another series of tests this evening with 0% loss, so I don't think it really has any negative impact on my wifi performance after all.
sirwifi
Regular Contributor
@FreshJR that much packet loss on your 5Ghz band is not normal, unless the signal is very poor or there's something else going on.
Also, you're saying you ran your 2.4Ghz tests with -u -b 100M, even for the long distance one? If so, your bandwidth shows a bit under 60Mbps and no packet loss. Where's the rest of 40Mbps then? That should be reported as packet loss.
The summary is also confusing, 0 bytes, 0 bandwidth:
Something is not right with your iperf.
Also, you're saying you ran your 2.4Ghz tests with -u -b 100M, even for the long distance one? If so, your bandwidth shows a bit under 60Mbps and no packet loss. Where's the rest of 40Mbps then? That should be reported as packet loss.
The summary is also confusing, 0 bytes, 0 bandwidth:
Code:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 5] 0.00-10.10 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 1.810 ms 0/7171 (0%)Something is not right with your iperf.
sirwifi
Regular Contributor
I haven't looked at the CPU use as I'm not sure how reliable it is on ARM, but I really doubt iperf is CPU intensive, what could it possibly do that an 800Mhz CPU couldn't keep up with?
Not saying that the CPU won't be able to keep up with iperf itself, just that running iperf will use a sizable percentage of that CPU, which won't be available for routing. Keep in mind that this CPU is NOT capable of NATing 1 GBps, only around 650 Mbps. That means that with iperf running, your throughput will be even lower than 650 Mbps.
ColinTaylor
Part of the Furniture
Not necessarily. If I run iperf to my ZyXEL access point I see the same sort of packet loss reported as you do. But if I do the same test to my Asus router I don't see the same effect. For example, at long distance (standing at the bottom of my garden!) sending 1000Mbps over a link speed of ~130Mbps, the receive rate is ~29Mbps with no packet loss. So I think that is to do with the interactions between the different hardware.
Code:
C:\Utils\iperf>iperf3 -c micro -u -b 1000m
Connecting to host micro, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.1.10 port 51210 connected to 192.168.1.50 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 3.76 MBytes 31.4 Mbits/sec 481
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 3.40 MBytes 28.6 Mbits/sec 435
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 3.74 MBytes 31.4 Mbits/sec 479
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 3.66 MBytes 30.7 Mbits/sec 469
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 2.81 MBytes 23.6 Mbits/sec 360
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 3.01 MBytes 25.2 Mbits/sec 385
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 3.12 MBytes 26.2 Mbits/sec 400
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 3.49 MBytes 29.4 Mbits/sec 447
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 3.55 MBytes 29.8 Mbits/sec 455
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 3.71 MBytes 31.2 Mbits/sec 475
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 34.3 MBytes 28.7 Mbits/sec 1.236 ms 0/4386 (0%)
[ 4] Sent 4386 datagramsThat just seems to be a quirk (bug) of the way the iperf server reports the summary line. I see it as well, but the information above it is correct and the summary line on the client is correct.
Last edited:
FreshJR
Very Senior Member
I understand this logic completely and I have no idea why the missing throughput did not show up as loss when defined transfer was higher than max possible throughput.
I did make sure of the udp flag!
I was just trying to help. I have no Linux machines to test on. This was ipref3 windows version.
Ipref manages to find loss on 5ghz. I will try fringe areas of 2.4ghz.
---
Do you think windows sets up a buffer, so ipref packets go to the buffer when wifi can't keep up. The receiving computer just finds packet loss if it misses a sequential packet. No sequential packets are missed, just the remaining packets never leave the buffer and are destroyed at the end ?
Last edited:
sirwifi
Regular Contributor
Not doing any NATing tests, it's all LAN if you bind iperf to the LAN interface, when running on the router. But I get your point.
sirwifi
Regular Contributor
@ColinTaylor It could be that iperf3 has issues or works differently from iperf2 or platform (e.g. Windows).
FWIW, I'm running "iperf version 2.0.5 (08 Jul 2010) pthreads" on the client (Mac) and server (Linux Mint 17.3/Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS).
From my past and present tests with iperf I've never seen it not report packet loss when you push past the link bandwidth, this is a first for me. Could be a quirk of either iperf3 or the Windows build or a combination.
FWIW, I'm running "iperf version 2.0.5 (08 Jul 2010) pthreads" on the client (Mac) and server (Linux Mint 17.3/Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS).
From my past and present tests with iperf I've never seen it not report packet loss when you push past the link bandwidth, this is a first for me. Could be a quirk of either iperf3 or the Windows build or a combination.
sirwifi
Regular Contributor
I think you may be missing the point of these tests. We are not trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of WiFi. If you read my first post, you will see this all started for me with VOIP issues after I upgraded to the latest firmware, after 3+ yrs of no issues, set it and forget it. That's when I started investigating and found what I found. I fully understand how crappy wireless can be, I'm a firm believer in good wires.
ColinTaylor
Part of the Furniture
My point was that with the two test cases everything was the same, same software running on the same hardware. The only thing that changed was in one case I was connecting to the Asus SSID and in the other I was connecting to the ZyXEL SSID. So it can't be iperf or the OS.
Similar threads
Similar threads
Similar threads
-
[BE98/PRO] Xbox Remote Play don’t work, solved, but…. where's the problem? (From cellular phone)
- Started by BoostOver
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thermostat network problem, RT-AX88U Pro on 3006.102.4
- Started by The_Bishop
- Replies: 29
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
ASUS RT-BE92U Firmware version 3.0.0.6.102_38979 (2025/10/31)- Started by Spartan
- Replies: 0
-
-
Release ASUS ZenWiFi BQ16 Firmware version 3.0.0.6.102_37026 2025/10/30
- Started by Dodgydrains
- Replies: 1
-
Release ASUS GT-BE98 Firmware version 3.0.0.6.102_39115 (2025/10/30)- Started by Thermaltake
- Replies: 2
-
Support SNBForums w/ Amazon
If you'd like to support SNBForums, just use this link and buy anything on Amazon. Thanks!
Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest
Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
