Router and Wifi Adapter for my 100Mbps line

[Fabmaszter]

Hi,
I recently got a 100Mbps line at home but unfortunately with my current setup I only get around 30-38Mbps. Thats why I started looking for a new Router.

After reading a lot on this site I have decided NOT to go for an AC device but rather for an N900 one.
If I understood everything correctly more than N900 would not make sense with a 100Mbps line, right?

So after going through most of the devices I think the ASUS RT-N66U Dark Knight is exactly what I need.

So my only remaining questions are:

1. Are my assumptions correct and I will get almost my full bandwidth with the mentioned Router?
2. Which adapter should I get with that Router for my desktop PC? I was thinking about the TP-Link TL-WDN4800, what do you think?

Thanks a lot!!

Fabmaszter

 

[stevech]

Your 30-38Mbps (bits/sec, not bytes/sec) - is via a wired connection, not WiFi, right?

That's the only way you're really going to benefit from 100Mbps service. If indeed that's really what the ISP promises, rather than meaning the cable connection is 100BT. In the US, you'd pay quite a bit for real 100Mbps service.

WiFi at 100Mbps net yield (after WiFi and TCP overhead), is unlikely to be 100Mbps unless you are in the same room.

So go wired, or you may be paying more than necessary.

 

[Deleted member 28741]

100Mb line - Which devices?

Hi,
I recently got a 100Mbps line at home but unfortunately with my current setup I only get around 30-38Mbps. Thats why I started looking for a new Router.

After reading a lot on this site I have decided NOT to go for an AC device but rather for an N900 one.
If I understood everything correctly more than N900 would not make sense with a 100Mbps line, right?

So after going through most of the devices I think the ASUS RT-N66U Dark Knight is exactly what I need.

So my only remaining questions are:

1. Are my assumptions correct and I will get almost my full bandwidth with the mentioned Router?
2. Which adapter should I get with that Router for my desktop PC? I was thinking about the TP-Link TL-WDN4800, what do you think?

Thanks a lot!!

Fabmaszter

Which router are you using now? You don't say which devices you got your 30-38Mbs results...but they also have an impact on the speed you get.

I have a 100Mb line running into "economy" model TP Link 841 (Single Channel 2.4ghz 300N) Router which gives me these results:-

For my Macbook via Wifi:
Activity Monitor shows ~9-10 MB/sec while running Speedtest.net shows ~75-80Mbps.

Transmit rate is 145 (not sure if it should be higher!).

For my iMac via Ethernet
Activity Monitor shows ~11-11.7 MB/sec while running Speedtest.net shows ~93-94 Mbps

This would seem fair (1MB - 8 Mb -- I think).

Using mobiles I get much lower results though:

iPhone 4 - Speedtest = ~10Mbps

HTC One - = ~40Mbps

Hope this helps.

 

[Fabmaszter]

Hi guys,

My 30-38 are wireless and MegaBIT, I live in Germany and here 100Mbps isnt that uncommon.
Regarding my setup I have ISP provided "Router" called FritzBox 6430 which is from what I have read pretty bad regarding wifi throughput.
My current Wifi adapter is 300Mb Edimax EW-7612PIn.

So any additional input regarding my questions?

Thanks

 

[chadster766]

If I understand you right you want to upgrade your whole network throughput.

I recommend the WRT1900AC because the performance of you network hinges on your main router.

Then for the best wireless through put I've seen use wireless AC technology. The fastest adapter from my testing is the Linksys AC1200 Adapter USB 3.0 and for wireless bridging to Ethernet only devices the Linksys AC1300 Wireless Bridge 4 Ethernet Ports.

The Linksys stock firmware is designed as a powerful home router interface with easy to use core options.

More advanced options are available in OpenWRT firmware. 2.4Ghz and AC tech work fine on the firmware. 5Ghz wireless N only devices may have issue with this firmware. I'm waiting on confirmation regarding that.

 

[thiggins]

As has been pointed out, 100 Mbps wireless throughput is difficult to achieve.

N300 devices provide about 70 Mbps typical best case in 20 MHz mode, and 100 Mbps in 40 MHz mode. But that is with router and client in the same room and with no other wireless activity.

The ASUS RT-N66U will easily support 100 Mbps wired routing throughput both up and downlink. But so will a lot of other routers, as you can see in the Router Charts.

If you want a shot at getting 100 Mbps wireless throughput, your best bet would be to move to an AC class router. An AC1200 class router with an AC1200 class adapter would easily provide 100 Mbps throughput, in 5 GHz, even with moderate signal levels. Note, however, that 5 GHz signals don't reach as far as 2.4 GHz.

 

[thiggins]

More advanced options are available in OpenWRT firmware.

I think it's premature to be touting this. There is no consumer-ready release at this point.

 

[stevech]

It's kind of moot, in that few Internet hosts will sustain 100Mbps for one user connection.

 

[chadster766]

It's kind of moot, in that few Internet hosts will sustain 100Mbps for one user connection.

Not true, European ISP's (RDS) and Hurricane Electric connections certainly do.

I had a hard time believing it at first. Those guys are so lucky.

 

[chadster766]

It's kind of moot, in that few Internet hosts will sustain 100Mbps for one user connection.

Thanks Tim I keep that in mind.

 

[Fabmaszter]

Ok thanks for the answer!
The only thing that confuses me is that the numbers regarding 2.4GHz throughput are better on the best N900 Router than on the best AC1200 Router (I kind of ignore the 5GHz numbers since I dont think it really matters how high they are since both are well above 100Mbps).

So to clarify, yes, I want to completely replace my current Router and Network card of my desktop to get as close to the 100Mbps as possible WIRELESSLY. (Wired I currently get around 98Mbps, but thats no option since the Router is too far away form my PC).

Do you think with the mentioned Asus Router and TP-Link network card it would not be possible to get throughput very close to 100?

 

[stevech]

Do you think with the mentioned Asus Router and TP-Link network card it would not be possible to get throughput very close to 100?

Unlikely. Don't confuse WiFi raw link bit rates with the IP layer speed you pay for which you say has reached 98Mbps wired.

Virtually no content on the Internet at 100Mbps anyway.

 

[thiggins]

Ok thanks for the answer!
The only thing that confuses me is that the numbers regarding 2.4GHz throughput are better on the best N900 Router than on the best AC1200 Router (I kind of ignore the 5GHz numbers since I dont think it really matters how high they are since both are well above 100Mbps).

So to clarify, yes, I want to completely replace my current Router and Network card of my desktop to get as close to the 100Mbps as possible WIRELESSLY. (Wired I currently get around 98Mbps, but thats no option since the Router is too far away form my PC).

Do you think with the mentioned Asus Router and TP-Link network card it would not be possible to get throughput very close to 100?

How far away will they be and what sort of home/apartment construction?

2.4GHz will be iffy for 100 Mbps. Possible with 5 GHz, but depends on the distance and physical obstacles between.

Stevech has a good point about 100 Mbps internet sources.

 

[Fabmaszter]

Well I know that I will not use the full 100 at once but lets say I download something on one PC with 50Mbps (Usenet) and stream something on another machine in HD while my gf streams music on a third device. At the same time we have 2 phones connected.
Right now this isnt working very well since either one is always lagging and I have no QoS or load balancing options on my current Router.

My main PC and the Router will be 2 rooms apart, roughly 40ft I think.

My main concern is if the N900 device is enough for what I need of if I should spend more to get a AC1750/1900 one?

 

[thiggins]

If all traffic will be wireless, AC is going to provide > 100 Mbps bandwidth capacity for 5 GHz only. For 2.4 GHz, an AC router is the same as an N router, which will be iffy for reaching 100 Mbps with 20 MHz bandwidth mode.

You get the benefit from N900 router only if you have N450 or N900 class (3x3) clients. Most devices are only 2x2 (N300/N600).

"HD" streams from Netflix, Vudu, etc run only 8 - 10 Mbps.

If you are running downloads while trying to stream HD, you want a router with good QoS that will prioritize the streams. A bigger "pipe" won't necessarily guarantee glitch-free video streaming while downloading is running.

Again, to get higher bandwidth, both router AND clients must support higher link rates.

 

[sfx2000]

If all traffic will be wireless, AC is going to provide > 100 Mbps bandwidth capacity for 5 GHz only. For 2.4 GHz, an AC router is the same as an N router, which will be iffy for reaching 100 Mbps with 20 MHz bandwidth mode.

You get the benefit from N900 router only if you have N450 or N900 class (3x3) clients. Most devices are only 2x2 (N300/N600).

"HD" streams from Netflix, Vudu, etc run only 8 - 10 Mbps.

If you are running downloads while trying to stream HD, you want a router with good QoS that will prioritize the streams. A bigger "pipe" won't necessarily guarantee glitch-free video streaming while downloading is running.

Again, to get higher bandwidth, both router AND clients must support higher link rates.

Let's not confuse QoS with Traffic Shaping please... QoS is very specific with regards to 802 tagging on the LAN/WLAN/MAN level... even going into 3G and 4G in the telecom space...

QoS is at the MAC layer, and looking at my traces, there is no QoS tagging from the WAN side from Hulu/Netflix... so it becomes generic best effort.

Heck, on my Slingbox, which does support QoS tagging on the LAN - when viewing from outside of my network, it's best effort, as QoS tagging is end-to-end... and anyone in the middle, if they don't do it, QoS falls apart...

Traffic shaping - you can prioritize a client or application on your LAN/WLAN, and it helps to some extent, but once you get into client/server apps outside of your SOHO network, everyone is on the same best effort bus, unless your Cable/DSL provider (and their peering providers) allow QoS...

sfx

 

[htismaqe]

Let's not confuse QoS with Traffic Shaping please... QoS is very specific with regards to 802 tagging on the LAN/WLAN/MAN level... even going into 3G and 4G in the telecom space...

QoS is at the MAC layer, and looking at my traces, there is no QoS tagging from the WAN side from Hulu/Netflix... so it becomes generic best effort.

Heck, on my Slingbox, which does support QoS tagging on the LAN - when viewing from outside of my network, it's best effort, as QoS tagging is end-to-end... and anyone in the middle, if they don't do it, QoS falls apart...

Traffic shaping - you can prioritize a client or application on your LAN/WLAN, and it helps to some extent, but once you get into client/server apps outside of your SOHO network, everyone is on the same best effort bus, unless your Cable/DSL provider (and their peering providers) allow QoS...

sfx

802.1p tagging is at the MAC layer on the LAN. But in a WAN or MAN that's routed, you could use DiffServ at the network layer. Addtionally, in a large WAN or MAN, you might also be mapping layer 3 Diffserv code points to MPLS experimental bits or using RSVP to map QoS across a large multi service backbone.

You are correct though, it's still end-to-end. That's why most gateway routers in the business and enterprise space map DSCP to 802.1p and back - to preserve end-to-end QoS. I don't know of many residential service providers that provide QoS as part of the internet service unless you're paying for it.

 

[sfx2000]

802.1p tagging is at the MAC layer on the LAN. But in a WAN or MAN that's routed, you could use DiffServ at the network layer. Addtionally, in a large WAN or MAN, you might also be mapping layer 3 Diffserv code points to MPLS experimental bits or using RSVP to map QoS across a large multi service backbone.

You are correct though, it's still end-to-end. That's why most gateway routers in the business and enterprise space map DSCP to 802.1p and back - to preserve end-to-end QoS. I don't know of many residential service providers that provide QoS as part of the internet service unless you're paying for it.

one can use DiffServ, but in my experience in Carrier-Space - not likely, it's all bulk traffic. And yes, we use MPLS, but there's little incentive at the moment to prioritize one provider over another - so for us, all upstream providers are on the same best effort bus - some carriers may have content offerings on their own, so within their last mile, they may do additional work with DiffServ and QoS.

One of the issues with QoS is reservation of resources so that higher priority traffic can get thru - we do MPLS priority for in-house traffic to ensure that services are in-fact available... for all providers

Comcast kind of changed things there, with a couple of upstream providers, and those guys are now kind of butt-hurt... but is this Comcast or is this the upstream guys giving in - once they give in, it's all over man... and this battle isn't done yet, as the Interconnect and CDN folks haven't really made their presence known... but they're starting to...

Our emphasis for the moment is traffic fairness for all our customers... and upstream issues are not our problem.

But I will say this - sooner or later, everyone will pay as the path that the FCC is going down says just that...

I'm one of the good guys here...

sfx

 

[htismaqe]

Actually, one of the key "benefits" of BGP VPNs over MPLS (aka private MPLS WAN) for enterprises is QoS. It's not all bulk traffic. On a public MPLS backbone, sure. The only QoS you're going to get is PE to CE - "the last mile".

But when using a private MPLS WAN from a service provider, end-to-end QoS, as well was as in-path, per-hop congestion control (like WFQ) is primary driver for adoption.

You can map p-bits from the LAN into DSCP on the CE router, the PE router maps the DSCP to EXP bits in the MPLS core and carries it to the far end PE, where the process is reversed.

 

[sfx2000]

Actually, one of the key "benefits" of BGP VPNs over MPLS (aka private MPLS WAN) for enterprises is QoS. It's not all bulk traffic. On a public MPLS backbone, sure. The only QoS you're going to get is PE to CE - "the last mile".

But when using a private MPLS WAN from a service provider, end-to-end QoS, as well was as in-path, per-hop congestion control (like WFQ) is primary driver for adoption.

You can map p-bits from the LAN into DSCP on the CE router, the PE router maps the DSCP to EXP bits in the MPLS core and carries it to the far end PE, where the process is reversed.

We're getting pretty far off-topic - we've deployed MPLS on some of the links, but normally when standing up new connectivity, not retrofitting on legacy. MPLS does have it's advantages, some of which you've pointed out, but there are many others as well.

Getting back to the OP's original question - yes, your current router may be a bit of a bottleneck, so looking at a newer device might help.

Check the charts - look for the WAN/LAN performance characteristics, there's some good stuff there.

sfx