RT-N66U firmware 3.0.0.4.374.720 released

[jlake]

How do you see stability of this firmware in regarding to samba shares and usbdrives usage?

I've found that this firmware doesn't like extensive LAN Speed Test testing of Samba performance...
I've managed to get this router twice to the state that it's working, but... I cannot get in through samba/ftp and web UI.

Anyone else noticed that?

I'm not having any samba problems, but I'll keep an eye out.
I use Teracopy for testing file copy speed.

I don't really test with a USB drive plugged in to the rt-n66u. But if I do test, I usually get a timed 5.7 MB/s (6.9 MB/s in progress) with Sandisk cruzer NTSF 8gb flash drive (using teracopy). I'm sure it would probably be faster if I used a better drive than $8.99 Walmart special that's plugged in to it. The other thumb drive that I use is a 16 gb sandisk but its formatted in fat32 and I don't think I've ever tested it because I know it would be snail slow anyway.

I test using the 5 ghz of the rt-n66u by copying a large file to a 1TB ntsf seagate USB drive that is attached to an EA4500 in bridge mode. The EA4500 is an access point cascaded via Cat5e (gigabit) to the rt-n66u. Teracopy reports in progress speed of around 11-12 MB/s with a final timed average transfer consistently at 10 MB/s. All of my 5ghz adapters are linksys (broadcom) ae2500 2x2:2

Note---the ea4500 has a little faster USB capability because it has 1.2 ghz Marvell CPU and isn't the bottleneck.....so I don't use the USB drive on the rt-n66u much for large files. But that's about the only advantage of the EA4500. The rt-n66u wins in about every other category.

 

[jlake]

If anyone wants to copy my own spreadsheet to test your own speeds and throughput at various locations, feel free to. Also feel free to PM me your email and I can put you on as collaborator if you have ideas (on a new sheet) to clean it up or make it more useful.

http://bit.ly/PrivateJokerWifi

*side note, I am still on 3.0.0.4.374.32-MW. I'm not trying to show you my results vs your results here, I'm just showing you the format of variables I log.

Thanks for posting your tests for comparison. My tests are not near as detailed, but my test method is as consistent as possible for the most part, although this time, I used channel 153 @40mhz instead of the usual 149 @ 40 mhz. I don't test in multiple locations. I just use the same laptop at the same location with the same test file at 300 Mbps link speed.
I'm happy with the 5 ghz wireless copy speed with this firmware. From what I can see with my tests, it's the same as .276 and Merlin .32

Looking forward to seeing your results with this firmware.

 

[nubyOz]

Thanks for posting your tests for comparison. My tests are not near as detailed, but my test method is as consistent as possible for the most part, although this time, I used channel 153 @40mhz instead of the usual 149 @ 40 mhz. I don't test in multiple locations. I just use the same laptop at the same location with the same test file at 300 Mbps link speed.
I'm happy with the 5 ghz wireless copy speed with this firmware. From what I can see with my tests, it's the same as .276 and Merlin .32

Looking forward to seeing your results with this firmware.

Hi,

Just a note: I found that spatial orientation of both router antennae and laptop (usually screen with build in antennae) makes vast difference in signal strength, saw variation of 20dB at the same location.
For me having screen side instead of back to router had best results.

So when measuring it is important to also keep the spatial orientation the same.

Regards

Ralf

 

[PrivateJoker]

Hi,

Just a note: I found that spatial orientation of both router antennae and laptop (usually screen with build in antennae) makes vast difference in signal strength, saw variation of 20dB at the same location.
For me having screen side instead of back to router had best results.

So when measuring it is important to also keep the spatial orientation the same.

Regards

Ralf

That's a good point Ralf, since many (most?) laptops have their antennas surrounding the LCD display. I'm guessing that 20 dB of loss was on 5ghz?

I guess I hope to minimize such differences by measuring with same devices in same position for my tests. But still that's great thing to keep in mind when you're testing & troubleshooting.

 

[msb]

How do you see stability of this firmware in regarding to samba shares and usbdrives usage?

I've found that this firmware doesn't like extensive LAN Speed Test testing of Samba performance...
I've managed to get this router twice to the state that it's working, but... I cannot get in through samba/ftp and web UI.

Anyone else noticed that?

Did you see my earlier post http://forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showpost.php?p=82020&postcount=76 ?

 

[bluepoint]

I did notice that router position seems critical with this firmware. I'm not a radio expert, but I tinkered with moving the router a few centimeters in all different directions and it really makes a difference.

After seeing your post and had time, I agree with your findings. I ended up with the best signal strength of 12 dBm gain by moving the router 90 degree from the original orientation, it's a significant change. It's a good recommendation for users that experience weak signals from this driver.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

After seeing your post and had time, I agree with your findings. I ended up with the best signal strength of 12 dBm gain by moving the router 90 degree from the original orientation, it's a significant change. It's a good recommendation for users that experience weak signals from this driver.

Moving the router around is a good way to get the signal around to were its needed but to have to do that because a firmware update caused the router to put out a much lower transmission is not a fix.

 

[jlake]

Moving the router around is a good way to get the signal around to were its needed but to have to do that because a firmware update caused the router to put out a much lower transmission is not a fix.

Yeah, I think this firmware and moving the router is a workaround, imo.

I think Asus needs to contact Broadcom and ask them for a new SDK. I realize SDKs aren't free. But if Broadcom goofed up the previous SDK, then they should have no problem with supplying a new SDK that is specifically designed for the RT-N66U.....at no charge.

 

[bluepoint]

Moving the router around is a good way to get the signal around to were its needed but to have to do that because a firmware update caused the router to put out a much lower transmission is not a fix.

That's the wireless state in this busy band, there is a need to physically adjust the orientation to find the best spot. No firmware will be equal specially if the drivers are different. Again, it's just an observation and not posted to influence no one. Your lower transmission theory has no data to backup, If I see one then I will agree. I had never change the default value of the trans power cause I find the default value sufficient. Hell I can walk one block away from my house and I still get a signal but that's because I have a good LOS from there.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

That's the wireless state in this busy band, there is a need to physically adjust the orientation to find the best spot. No firmware will be equal specially if the drivers are different. Again, it's just an observation and not posted to influence no one. Your lower transmission theory has no data to backup, If I see one then I will agree. I had never change the default value of the trans power cause I find the default value sufficient. Hell I can walk one block away from my house and I still get a signal but that's because I have a good LOS from there.

I have no data other than what wifi analyzer shows with the new asus firmware. As soon as I went back to Merlin 372_32 bata1 the 2G band signal increased a lot hands down. For me anyway this bata Merlin build works rock solid on my network and having the v6 firewall I really see no reason to change again till something better is released.

 

[bluepoint]

I have no data other than what wifi analyzer shows with the new asus firmware. As soon as I went back to Merlin 372_32 bata1 the 2G band signal increased a lot hands down.

That's the same observation here and it's not a basis to conclude that the router is transmitting with a lower power because when I change the router's orientation 90 degree from the original position, the signals from this firmware is as good as Merlin's .270 based drivers. It's might as well be good only for my environment but it's a good thing to try just in case.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

That's the same observation here and it's not a basis to conclude that the router is transmitting with a lower power because when I change the router's orientation 90 degree from the original position, the signals from this firmware is as good as Merlin's .270 based drivers. It's might as well be good only for my environment but it's a good thing to try just in case.

I agree what ever works for you really is the bottom line. It just seems strange a lawsuit claiming that Asus routers are transmitting higher then the FCC allows and then they release a firmware that substantially lowers the rf output. I understand it uses a different drive set maybe that's the reason. Either way the output has dropped and changing the output in the router UI makes no difference in this new version that further leads me to believe there is more going on then meets the eye. Just my own theory of course.

 

[wouterv]

Also, do not just look to signal strenght. Also check the actual wireless rate and even better test the throughput by a file transfer.
I noticed and some with me, that yes the signal strengtht at 2.4 GHz seems to be less compared to the 270 build, but the wireless rate improved.
At the furthest away accesspoint that has a wireless connection to my RT-N66U I defenitely see a less strong signal, but the wireless rate hardly ever drops below what is the maximum. With the 270 build the wireless rate often dropped significant on that relative long distance.
Maybe the driver decreased the TX power but enhanced the N standard and the multi beam feature.

 

[dsring]

Also, do not just look to signal strenght. Also check the actual wireless rate and even better test the throughput by a file transfer.
I noticed and some with me, that yes the signal strengtht at 2.4 GHz seems to be less compared to the 270 build, but the wireless rate improved.
At the furthest away accesspoint that has a wireless connection to my RT-N66U I defenitely see a less strong signal, but the wireless rate hardly ever drops below what is the maximum. With the 270 build the wireless rate often dropped significant on that relative long distance.
Maybe the driver decreased the TX power but enhanced the N standard and the multi beam feature.

I agree. For me, this is best firmware release to date for the RT-N66U. For those upgrading to this firmware, be sure to clear the NVRAM and reboot the router after upgrading.

The way that I upgrade firmware is to download the new version to a computer hard-wired to the router. Then perform the upgrade via the Administration "Firmware Upgrade" tab in the router web GUI. Then erase the nvram and reboot the router using a PuTTY telnet login:

1. Enable telnet.

2. Telnet in as admin (you telnet to the address of the router, of course, which is likely to be 192.168.1.1, but it is whatever you set the address of your router to).

3. Use these commands:

mtd-erase -d nvram
reboot

4. My preference at this point is to power cycle the router before re-entering my settings.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

You consider this the best release ? Lets see 2.4 Ghz signal much lower still NO IPV6 firewall. Not the best in my mind.

 

[msb]

I agree. For me, this is best firmware release to date for the RT-N66U....

That's was what I was thinking until the I couldn't access the web interface and I simultaneously lost access to the hard drive connected to it. I've never seen that with any other version, and in my mind, having the web interface get borked is about as bad as you can get...

 

[PrivateJoker]

You consider this the best release ? Lets see 2.4 Ghz signal much lower still NO IPV6 firewall. Not the best in my mind.

@Kel-L, not that this is a replacement for IPV6 firewall, but wanted to make sure you saw my post here with a cool IPV6 port scanner. I was looking to test my IPV6 visibility to the outside world the other day and found that site. Seems interesting, and this may not be the thread for it but if anyone has other IPV6 security checking type sites, please post in the forum I'm linking to so we can check them out!

 

[SonyHome]

After installing this version 2.4Ghz Max speed is only 216 per inSSIDer where as it was 450 before. I've tried setting the channel bandwidth to 40Mhz and 20/40 and it makes no difference.

Any thoughts on how to get this back to max speed of 450?

 

[wouterv]

I can honestly say the 720 works out well for me.
Maybe the behaviour on 2.4 GHz is strongly dependent on the user settings, and maybe the problems have shifted from 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz, making the last more dependent of the client adapter hardware and firmware.
The 2.4 GHz clients here are many: laptops, android phones, IPods, Windows Phone, a Linksys WRT54GL as repeater, a PS3.
Installation was as mentioned before and reported by others:
Upgrade firmware>Hard reset>Manual enter "my" settings.

My main differences from factory default are:

Advanced Settings - Wireless - General - 2.4 GHz
b/g Protection: unchecked
Channel bandwidth: 20 MHz
Control Channel: 1

Advanced Settings - Wireless - WPS
Enable WPS: OFF

Advanced Settings - Wireless - Professional
2.4GHz: Enable Wireless scheduler: No
5GHz: Enable Wireless scheduler: No

Advanced Settings - LAN - DHCP Server
IP Pool Starting Address: 192.168.1.50
IP Pool Ending Address: 192.168.1.149

Advanced Settings - WAN - Internet Connection
Enable UPnP: No

Last note: I do agree with Kel-L and many others: Asus shall no longer wait to implement a (Merlins?) IPv6 firewall.

 

[SonyHome]

After installing this version 2.4Ghz Max speed is only 216 per inSSIDer where as it was 450 before. I've tried setting the channel bandwidth to 40Mhz and 20/40 and it makes no difference.

Any thoughts on how to get this back to max speed of 450?

I was able to get this fixed by changing my control channel from Auto to 5u. When on Auto it was selecting 1.