Potential problem RT-AC68U (originally TM-AC1900) and WiFi driver 6.37.14.126

[jrmwvu04]

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.

Quite the opposite - for me, it worked great before on the old drivers, and still works great on the new. Or, to reiterate what Merlin said, some people have problems and some don't. And, by the way, even setting aside the environmental variables that people have, we are using all types of clients, servers, and iperf builds and versions. So none of this is apples to apples in any meaningful way. But it was fun to toy with, all the same.

 

[sirwifi]

Quite the opposite - for me, it worked great before on the old drivers, and still works great on the new. Or, to reiterate what Merlin said, some people have problems and some don't. And, by the way, even setting aside the environmental variables that people have, we are using all types of clients, servers, and iperf builds and versions. So none of this is apples to apples in any meaningful way. But it was fun to toy with, all the same.

It is apples to apples as long as you use the same environment and you only change 1 variable, e.g. a single setting at a time, or a firmware version, etc. and do multiple runs. I do agree that comparing absolute numbers across environments is meaningless. Now if multiple users report the same problems in different environments that can point to an underlying issue.

 

[sirwifi]

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.

That is strange that iperf can't figure out packet loss.

 

[ColinTaylor]

That is strange that iperf can't figure out packet loss.

I don't think it's anything to do with iperf, as demonstrated by the two tests. I suspect that the packets loss is being hidden from iperf by the interaction by between the wireless card/driver and the access point.

 

[Jack Yaz]

Testing from an S7 on 5GHz...is the packet loss a concern when within 10m of router? I'm going to guess using a Linux VM isn't great either!

 

[ColinTaylor]

Testing from an S7 on 5GHz...is the packet loss a concern when within 10m of router?

I would think not at 0.19%. UDP is meant to be lossy. If an application needs zero loss then it uses TCP.

 

[Jack Yaz]

I would think not at 0.19%. UDP is meant to be lossy. If an application needs zero loss then it uses TCP.

OK, I was seeing others in this thread with 0% and thought mine was off the pace!

 

[sirwifi]

OK, I was seeing others in this thread with 0% and thought mine was off the pace!

That looks fine, you're doing well.