Budd Lake, NJ
RVS4000 Speed problems - explained...
The base problem I had was a slowdown of download speed from 27 Mb to 10 Mb when IPS (Intrusion Protection System) was enabled. After a days of going through the useless (foreign) Linksys tech support who finally admitted that they had to forward it to a senior tech (that process took 40 minutes).. I was sent beta firmware upgrade by the senior tech- that I installed after using Ethereal to capture several scenarios.
1. Straight from the cable modem - result 27 mb downloads
2. Through the RVS4000 with IPS disabled result 27 mb downloads
3. Through the RVS4000 with IPS enabled result 10 mb downloads
Tech support wanted to analyze the captures to see if there were background transmissions that were causing the IPS engine to slow down. (You know - pass the buck to my provider...
After the beta firmware the results were the same. The firewall being on or off had no effect.
After a week the senior tech finally contacted me to say they had talked to the designers who said there was no fix in the works or planned because the processor in this unit is underpowered. The spec on this router is rated for 800 Mb NAT throughputs only. Linksys simply did not point that out in their sales info - that you can expect a 17mb speed hit if you want to be protected. (The engineers never anticipated cable modem speeds like Optimum Onlines 30 Mb connections my opinion not from Linksys)
Lessons learned -
1. Get an email address to follow up on your case. The phone system stinks
2. The RVS is great for speed and firewall protection if you can forego the IPS feature.
3. If you need protection and speed spend the bucks for a Cisco router, not one made by a child company.
Linksys makes good home products but dont expect enterprise network performance
Fantastic man, thanks for the review. What beta firware where you given? Also, what experience have you had with the VPN functionality of the device?
Edit: Also, when doing the second test, was the firewall enabled? From what I've read, it seems that it doesn't reduce throughput by 17Mbps but in can only handle about 10Mbps of IPS throughput.
I really think everyone who owns this model of firewall should open tickets and report this issue to Linksys and keep reporting it to Linksys and also make sure that any other consumer firewall maker who has this feature provides stats as to the total throughput of the IPS feature set on their equipment. This feature is known as a resource hog and people would like to use it but not if it destroys throughput. This is ok if you are using less then 10Mbps internet connections but with the way things are going, this just doesn't cut it. If need be, they can put in some low power, low speed dual core processors to handle the load or even a second CPU just for firewall/IPS handling. If it works correctly, people will pay the extra money for it.
Sorry for the rant, I've been looking for a solid VPN consumer router that can handle the increasing ISP speeds with decent enough security features. It seems like everyone I've looked at gets it almost right or they get one thing right and everything else horribly wrong.
|reply to bljerk |
I bought one of those last month, and also experienced the slow speeds. After reading the review at smallnetbuilders, I decided there is no hope for this product, so I boxed it back up and returned it.
I then bought a D-Link DIR-655, which was faster, but this seems cheaply-made (one of the rear-panel jacks would not lock the cable connector into place), plus the front-panel lights are glaringly bright on this model, so that also went back.
I have finally settled on a Linksys WRT54GL, which is shown as being fast enough to handle 30 Mbps downloads; I should be able to get a few years out of this before DOCSIS 3.0 speeds come about and make it obsolete; by that time, faster routers should be on the market. I considered a Netgear FVX538, which can handle 90 Mbps, but I see that I can buy at least 4 WRT54GL's for the price of one FVX538, so the expensive Netgear doesn't make economic sense. Also, I have read that some folks were not entirely happy with this product.
For now, I am using the factory WRT54GL firmware, but I may switch to one of the aftermarket ones later (which is why I spent the additional money to get the "L" version).
joshbDon't sweat the small stuff.Premium
|reply to bljerk |
I have had one since roll-out. Actually a little before.....
It's always been a little buggy. It's by far better than it was but it still needs work.
I think there is a new firmware in the plans here pretty soon and it should fix up the IPS issues. We hope. They pulled the update for IPS out of the last firmware update for some reason.
In order to get the better performance with the IPS they need to lightened up the IPS engine so it is not using such high amounts of the available resources. That feature is a hog like you can't believe.
If things made sense in life there would be no challenge in life.
|reply to bljerk |
I'm telling you, I'm very curious when these board manufacturers are going to start adding dual-cpu or maybe even low Mhz dual-core cpu's and onboard DDR-2 memory. If made in bulk, there shouldn't be much of a price difference and considering the performance increase (especially if they actually work the firmware to take advantage of the hardware features which seems to be hit and/or miss) and for the most part, people would be willing to pay a little bit extra especially if they can get those high-end features (app firewall; IPS, VPN, QoS to work well and are easy to use).
The only problem I would see, is for the most part, the companies going, "Hey, we have better hardware, lets make the features as bloated and unusable and buggy as possible".
Sorry, another rant, it's just sickens me that this router was so close to being what I needed in a high end consumer router. The fact is, when I am doing work on my Cisco router, I put my Linksys w/DD-WRT onto my internet connection while I perform configuration updates and testing and then add it back once that's done. A good solid consumer router with similar features (if not the same features as my Cisco) would be of great help cause I wouldn't loose my VPN and advanced security features while I'm working on it. Oh well...
|reply to bljerk |
Just read the following from Linksysinfo.org:
Is this the beta firmware you were talking about? Do you think the new firmware may help this device any? Anyone willing to test it?
Yes, that is the latest beta firmware. I am on it currently, I haven't noticed any speed increases also - Just found a memory leak however with SNMP / Syslog however.
|reply to bljerk |
I had started a thread awhile ago in April
»[RVS4000] Should I switch from WRT54GS v2 to RVS4000?
I had bought the unit and was terribly disappointed... buggy and slow as hell! My 7.1 Mbps cable was slowed to a turtles crawl... Actually I think a turtle was faster! Anyways the VPN connection worked but the router seemed to disconnect MSN on the computer I was connecting from... I think it may have been the router stalling or something... regardless if IPS was on or off, the throughput was really slow, I forget the numbers but I was pulling my hair out at that point... I had spoken to support in India and that was no help... There was actually a point where the Router wouldn't take a WAN address from the damn modem... and that was just the tip of the iceberg... I finally told the support people that it's a disgrace that this is directed toward small businesses... You know how much money one could lose if they actually had this damn router... geez... I'm still on my WRT54GS V2 with HyperWRT firmware and I use 2 comps (for fail safe reasons) for the VPNs and allow VPN passthrough on the router... WOrks more reliably since those 2 comps are always on anyways... RVS4000 needs major improvements... once that is solved it should be a router one should get since the interface and options it has was very useful if the thing worked. LOL!
RVS4000 - Beta Firmware v1.1.11 Released - »www.linksysinfo.org/forums/showt···?t=53405
- installed Jun 27 07
- updated IPS sig to v1.26
- operating nominally for 24hrs now
- appears screen refresh is a bit faster
- have been locally checking for similar syslog "killed" messages --(see thread, link above)
- unit installed in simple home network in gateway mode
- purchased mainly for "LAN side" jumbo support
- QoS, SIP, SNMP, P2P/IM and email notification are not enabled
- not enough features enabled to tap memory enough to cause leaks, I think.....