I have a netgear wndr3800 running OpenWRT aa rc1. The wndr3800 has gigabit ports but the most I can get through it with iperf is an average of around 80mbits/second (varying between 30 and 150). Because I can regularly see over 100 I can confirm that the ports are gigabit connected. It's configured such that port 1 is on a 192.168.0.0/24 network and port 2 is on 10.1.0.0/16 network and it routes between the two. I don't expect to get gigabit performance or anything out of it, it's only a little CPU after all, I'm just wondering if there are any tricks I can use to get a bit of extra boost out of it (software tricks - not interested in overclocking). It's also an internet gateway so needs to run iptables. I tried using the notrack target for packets between the two networks but then performance dropped to under 20mbits/second. Any suggestions? Thanks James
What are you using to get those metrics? On Tuesday, 26 March 2013, James Harper wrote:
I have a netgear wndr3800 running OpenWRT aa rc1. The wndr3800 has gigabit ports but the most I can get through it with iperf is an average of around 80mbits/second (varying between 30 and 150). Because I can regularly see over 100 I can confirm that the ports are gigabit connected.
It's configured such that port 1 is on a 192.168.0.0/24 network and port 2 is on 10.1.0.0/16 network and it routes between the two.
I don't expect to get gigabit performance or anything out of it, it's only a little CPU after all, I'm just wondering if there are any tricks I can use to get a bit of extra boost out of it (software tricks - not interested in overclocking).
It's also an internet gateway so needs to run iptables. I tried using the notrack target for packets between the two networks but then performance dropped to under 20mbits/second.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
James _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au <javascript:;> http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
-- *Michael Lindner* IT Systems Consultant _______________________________________ "It's always now"
Scrap that. On Tuesday, 26 March 2013, Michael Lindner wrote:
What are you using to get those metrics?
On Tuesday, 26 March 2013, James Harper wrote:
I have a netgear wndr3800 running OpenWRT aa rc1. The wndr3800 has gigabit ports but the most I can get through it with iperf is an average of around 80mbits/second (varying between 30 and 150). Because I can regularly see over 100 I can confirm that the ports are gigabit connected.
It's configured such that port 1 is on a 192.168.0.0/24 network and port 2 is on 10.1.0.0/16 network and it routes between the two.
I don't expect to get gigabit performance or anything out of it, it's only a little CPU after all, I'm just wondering if there are any tricks I can use to get a bit of extra boost out of it (software tricks - not interested in overclocking).
It's also an internet gateway so needs to run iptables. I tried using the notrack target for packets between the two networks but then performance dropped to under 20mbits/second.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
James _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
-- *Michael Lindner* IT Systems Consultant _______________________________________
-- *Michael Lindner* IT Systems Consultant _______________________________________ "It's always now"
On 26/03/13 12:15, James Harper wrote:
I have a netgear wndr3800 running OpenWRT aa rc1. The wndr3800 has gigabit ports but the most I can get through it with iperf is an average of around 80mbits/second (varying between 30 and 150).
Welcome to the world of teeny-weeny CPUs, mate. That CPU is not going to route that much traffic. Put the machines on the same VLAN and let the switching hardware do the work. It probably shouldn’t be advertised as gigabit unless it has enough CPU grunt to route — not just switch — at a reasonable speed. The NetComm NP805n can route PPPoE at around 450 Mbit/s (tested with iperf and a MikroTik PPPoE server), which is pretty impressive. Now for someone to port OpenWrt to it... I have a friend who bought a “gigabit” NAS (Western Digital MyBook World) which couldn’t even do 100 Mbit/s of SMB traffic. Mind you, with her Windows XP client machine using only a fixed 16 KB buffer by default (without tweaking the registry — oh gosh, SMBv1 is *fun* over high-latency WAN links) the box was kind of set up for failure...
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Jeremy Visser <jeremy@visser.name> wrote:
Welcome to the world of teeny-weeny CPUs, mate.
That CPU is not going to route that much traffic. Put the machines on the same VLAN and let the switching hardware do the work.
Indeed, CPU makes a lot of difference. I've just purchased the Asus RT-N66U which has a beefy Broadcom processor (running TomatoUSB), and yet I am not putting my local LAN on it, I have a dedicated hardware gigabit switch that I use for my LAN, keeping the Modem and Router (which are also dedicated) to each do what they do best. On a good day, I can see around 800 Mbps, though ~700 Mbps is more common. A lot of networking equipment that are advertised as gigabit ethernet are really misleading. If you want a real router which can actually do gigabit ethernet you're looking at something like Dynatek's high-end range or Cisco stuff, and they start from $450. Cheaper to buy a dedicated switch and a good $200 router IMO. Cheers -- Aryan
Jeremy Visser <jeremy@visser.name> writes:
I have a friend who bought a “gigabit” NAS (Western Digital MyBook World) which couldn’t even do 100 Mbit/s of SMB traffic. Mind you, with her Windows XP client machine using only a fixed 16 KB buffer by default (without tweaking the registry — oh gosh, SMBv1 is *fun* over high-latency WAN links) the box was kind of set up for failure...
ITYM CIFS. The NAS is probably running samba3 and I assume XP is new enough to speak CIFS -- SMB is older still. samba4 is finally out and that (and current linux kernels) speak SMB2, which WP indicates is in the same class of "we fixed all the design features" as NFSv3->NFSv4. I doubt samba4 is shipping in any appliances yet. (Has anyone evidence to the contrary?) In my testing so far samba4 has been pretty turnkey provided you're happy for it to hijack your entire DNS, and don't already use LDAP for anything else (like linux clients or sudo). Haven't tried to point a linux client at it yet -- not looking forward to finding out which winbind derivative is du jour since likewise was acquired... Er, sorry about wandering off on a tangent.
Quoting Jeremy Visser (jeremy@visser.name):
On 26/03/13 22:32, Michael Lindner wrote:
Who is the list admin?
At the footer of every list post, there is a link to the 'listinfo' page. That page's footer reveals the list admins as...
luv-main list run by lev@levlafayette.com, ljk+luv@cs.mu.oz.au
Moreover, this in the headers: List-Help: <mailto:luv-main-request@luv.asn.au?subject=help>
participants (6)
-
Aryan Ameri -
James Harper -
Jeremy Visser -
Michael Lindner -
Rick Moen -
trentbuck＠gmail.com