dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4886
share rss forum feed


Optional

join:2012-02-26
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

affordable router to handle 150/10?

right now I'm using some POS belkin n300. I have feeling that would nt exactly cut it with 2 people being heavy users.

any suggestions on a router that's not 200 dollars? Asus makes great stuff, I buy them whenever possible but their n900 is expensive.. I'll get it if I have too.

bbhog

join:2010-07-05
North York, ON
There were some recommendations made here... »[Cable] Recomended routers With enough Horsepower for 150/10?


SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

reply to Optional
Almost anything you buy these days will do 150/10 over ethernet. I have a 3 1/2 year old E3000 that dimes a 150/10 connection no worries.

Wireless you can basically assume 50% of the rated speed so if you want to hit 200 Mbps (which you'll do on a 150/10 connection with bursting), you'll want to get an N900 (450 Mbps per channel) router. The N600 routers (300 per channel) can be a touch slow if you have any signal issues.

coolspot18

join:2012-10-23
They can do 150/10 over Ethernet, but not WAN to LAN routing speed. i.e. the famous (although old) RT-N16 can only do 120mbps.

Check here for router benchmarks:

»www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/r···rts/view


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Optional
If you want the best performance split up your routing from your wireless AP. Buy two of the same modems or keep your Belkin (we're in agreement that it's probably a POS). Use the new router for DHCP and routing, and use the Belkin only for wifi. Splitting the load across two devices will help both units perform closer to their potential limits.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
reply to Optional
The Netgear WNR3500L is very fast, and also reasonably power efficient for a 24/7 appliance. The router charts suggest WAN-LAN performance > 250mbits/sec.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Optional
Going off the pretty handy list coolspot18 linked, I would say the most worthwhile and affordable router to get would be the ASUS RT-56U. The other one that I saw is the Cisco/Linksys EA2700, but I haven't had a chance to play with their new cloud based GUI, it doesn't seem to be popular with DSLr folks.

The RT-56U can be had for $105 from CC:

»www.canadacomputers.com/product_···d=036171

said by coolspot18:

They can do 150/10 over Ethernet, but not WAN to LAN routing speed. i.e. the famous (although old) RT-N16 can only do

I'll expand on this here a bit. On a home LAN, be it 100Mbps or 1000Mbps, you'll see close to thoe line speeds because the actual router portion of the router isn't used. Packets will just be switched between devices on the LAN. The reason you'll see a huge difference when going over the WAN interface is because the router CPUs used in all consumer router are pieces of junk (cheap as well, these guys make pretty good profit margins on consumer gear). When you send/receive to the internet, the router CPU needs to be used to make routing decisions (although I've always assumed it just uses a static default since there's only 1 way out and your ISP does the real routing). Some CPUs are so bad they can only handle so many packets being processed at once.

I'm really amazed TP-Links 1043 router can't even pull 150Mbps. Although maybe I shouldn't be, I never recommend their routers to being with. The brands to go with are typically Cisco/Linksys, ASUS, Netgear & Buffalo. I think Trendnet is up there as well.

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada

1 recommendation

reply to Optional
Get an old Atom netbook with an Expresscard slot. Add a gigabit ethernet Expresscard ($20 shipped: »www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as···39328041).

Install m0n0wall (beta with FreeBSD 8.3) or pfsense. Get a wireless AP just for your wireless needs.

This way, you would have the netbook for long term router needs, as I doubt you will come close to taxing its capabilities before hardware failure occurs. And you would upgrade your wireless AP depending on technology needs (like new wireless standards).


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by mario9999998:

Get an old Atom netbook with an Expresscard slot. Add a gigabit ethernet Expresscard ($20 shipped: »www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as···39328041).

Install m0n0wall (beta with FreeBSD 8.3) or pfsense. Get a wireless AP just for your wireless needs.

This way, you would have the netbook for long term router needs, as I doubt you will come close to taxing its capabilities before hardware failure occurs. And you would upgrade your wireless AP depending on technology needs (like new wireless standards).

Then they would still need to purchase a LAN switch and Wireless AP, as well as adding unneeded complexity. The entire thing would cost more than $100 + lots of time getting it up and running. Also would need to ensure the netbook as integrated LAN already as well, 1 for WAN and 1 for LAN.

Doeboye

join:2006-11-07
Canada
reply to coolspot18
said by coolspot18:

They can do 150/10 over Ethernet, but not WAN to LAN routing speed. i.e. the famous (although old) RT-N16 can only do 120mbps.

Check here for router benchmarks:

»www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/r···rts/view

For clarity's sake, the number is actually 141mbps . That said, I actually wanted to ask if anyone knows if that number is with or without wireless on?

I have one of these routers, and if I can get over 150mbps using it if it doesn't need to take care of wireless, it means I wouldn't need to buy a new router... Which would save me a few $$... .

If anyone is feeling particularly energetic and wants to try a test with and without wireless on, I would love to see the results! My understanding is that you would need to plug one pc in the WAN port, and another in a regular LAN port, then run a benchmark... Any networking Guru, feel free to jump in!

vincom

join:2009-03-06
Bolton, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Anveo
·TekSavvy Cable

1 edit
reply to Optional
if you have an old comp(p3/p4) and a spare nic + wireless router(would be your wireless ap) then install pfsense or monowall will handle anything you throw at it

my current setup: p3 w/2 nics + a wrt54g-tm w/tomato
my old and trusty wrt54g-tm is great but is a little laggy and cant handle the speed boost on cable, so I set it up as a wireless ap.

I actually have 2 wrt54g's on tomato and had it setup as one of them as just a wireless ap and the other as the wan connection w/wireless off but is still laggy and cant handle the speed bursts on the wan side

but I still miss my tomato gui, imho one of the best gui's out there
im on 25/2 cable

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada

1 edit
reply to TypeS
said by TypeS:

said by mario9999998:

Get an old Atom netbook with an Expresscard slot. Add a gigabit ethernet Expresscard ($20 shipped: »www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as···39328041).

Install m0n0wall (beta with FreeBSD 8.3) or pfsense. Get a wireless AP just for your wireless needs.

This way, you would have the netbook for long term router needs, as I doubt you will come close to taxing its capabilities before hardware failure occurs. And you would upgrade your wireless AP depending on technology needs (like new wireless standards).

Then they would still need to purchase a LAN switch and Wireless AP, as well as adding unneeded complexity. The entire thing would cost more than $100 + lots of time getting it up and running. Also would need to ensure the netbook as integrated LAN already as well, 1 for WAN and 1 for LAN.

Netbooks generally have built in gigabit ethernet, and an expresscard gigabit card costs $20 shipping included (link in my original post).

You would need to get a cheap wireless router for wireless and LAN switching capabilities: »www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as···04144CVF

And as for ease of putting it together:
1. download m0n0wall
2. put it on a usb flash drive
3. insert expresscard nic (plug and play) in the netbook
4. hookup the router (power only)
5. boot up the netbook using the usb flash drive, and it will run the setup/install and tell you how to plug in your network cables
6. connect to router ip, disable dhcp and setup wireless security
7. connect to m0n0wall ip and setup as you would any other router

The built in m0n0wall traffic shaping is amazing compared to what tomato/dd-wrt offer for qos.

bbhog

join:2010-07-05
North York, ON
mario... perhaps you should stop hijacking these threads to tell people about your amazing solution of turning old computers into routers!
Optional said he wants to find affordable router. Not spend his weekends trying to turn a home made computer into a router.

Even the most technical of people are not interested in doing this... personally there is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time doing that. I just want to spend the least amount of money I need to on "Commercially available" devices so I can push 150Mbps both wired and wirelessly to my my devices.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to mario9999998
said by mario9999998:

Netbooks generally have built in gigabit ethernet

Really? Of the three I have used, including my current N210, none have/had GigE built-in.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to coolspot18
said by coolspot18:

They can do 150/10 over Ethernet, but not WAN to LAN routing speed. i.e. the famous (although old) RT-N16 can only do

That's odd for the RT-N16 to be that slow. It essentially uses the same chipset as the Netgear WNR3500L and that one can do double?

I wonder what firmware they use to test, or which options are enabled, Firewall, QoS, etc...
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!


franklyong
Cisco Geek

join:2004-12-05
Canada
kudos:1
reply to mlord
Yea i've never seen any Gig ones with that either.
Personally I would use pfSense but power wise, and it kind of seems unneeded unless i'm running a apartment network.

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada

4 edits
reply to bbhog
lol if you don't like what I post then just ignore it.

A m0n0wall/pfsense solution is free if the op has an old computer, and can handle a 150/10 connection with no problem (even with traffic shaping and other extra features enabled). Worst case gigabit ethernet cards are cheap.

And they're really easy to setup... if it takes you more than an hour to setup, let alone a weekend then you probably think too highly of your computer usage skills.

PS. other suggested software routers too, not just me

said by mlord:

said by mario9999998:

Netbooks generally have built in gigabit ethernet

Really? Of the three I have used, including my current N210, none have/had GigE built-in.

My mistake, I just assumed they all have them. Either way, used/old laptop or old desktop. Desktop is cheaper (or more commonly available free) and easier to add gigabit. I ended up getting a cheapie laptop with a broken screen for free and it works fine and am using it. I mean these will use more power than a router, but if you can get it for free (or already have an old unused) that offsets the cost of power savings.

Also, not sure about these new routers, but I had a RT-N16 and used tomato, and using QOS would make CPU usage hit 100% all the time on my 28mbit cable connection.

So an important question is if QOS is a required feature that's enabled (ie. like for gaming and voip users).

urbang33k

join:2010-02-13
Canada
kudos:1
reply to Optional
also it's worth mentioning that a lot of consumer routers that do Stateful Packet Inspection will get a huge boost to LAN -> WAN -> LAN thoughput if that feature is turned off.


rustydusty

join:2009-09-29
Red Deer, AB
reply to Optional
+1 for pfsense. Will never purchase a consumer grade router again. Wireless is done by a DAP-2553. The extra time and effort you put into a pfsense build will be well worth it. Far exceeds anything you can buy at newegg, ncix, bestbuy, staples, etc.

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada

1 edit
reply to urbang33k
said by urbang33k:

also it's worth mentioning that a lot of consumer routers that do Stateful Packet Inspection will get a huge boost to LAN -> WAN -> LAN thoughput if that feature is turned off.

It's important to note that SmartNetBuilder's WAN-LAN throughput tests (numbers quoted all over the place here) all have SPI and QOS disabled (when possible via the router's firmware). And NAT is bypassed by testing using DMZ IP. I'm assuming those are features most people usually have enabled (unless your router can't handle the performance hit sufficiently).

»www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/l···vision-3

Real-world use of RT-N66u (Atom worked fine, N66u capped at 200mbps on a pppoe connection with SPI/QOS disabled):
»forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showp···count=29

Doeboye

join:2006-11-07
Canada
said by mario9999998:

Real-world use of RT-N66u (Atom worked fine, N66u capped at 200mbps on a pppoe connection with SPI/QOS disabled):
»forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showp···count=29

Thanks for the link! A very interesting read!

My understanding though, is that the issue seems to be that the connection is over pppoe and the slow-down is caused by the extra processing required. Non-pppoe implementations should have much higher WAN to LAN numbers, right? Closer to the 700+ mbps that smallnetbuilder claims...


clarknova

join:2010-02-23
Grande Prairie, AB
kudos:7
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Optional
EdgeRouter Lite. Gig-speed routing and accelerated VPN. You'll need a separate AP and switch with it, but great value for $99.

»www.ubnt.com/edgemax#EdgeMAXhardware
--
db

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada
reply to Doeboye
Keep in mind the 700mbps rate as tested is with most features stripped down. I'd be interested in seeing how the N66u (or a router like it) performs with a 150/10 connection with commonly used features turned on/used (like QOS, SPI, not using DMZ... so NAT, UDP streams... video and uTorrent DHT, etc...) and VPN (less common, but still widely used).

It's like testing out a racecar by only timing straight line speed and saying it's the best because of this one test. Most races have turns, fuel economy is a factor, etc...

Doeboye

join:2006-11-07
Canada
reply to Optional
Here's another thread discussing throughput of an Asus RT-N56U (similar performance numbers to the RT-N66U router) on a 1000mbps (Google Fiber?) connection:

»forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showt···?t=10540

The relevant part is this:

"I recently subscribed to 1000Mb/s fiber. I have a Huawei modem/router, but it has been set to pure modem mode.

If I connect my W520 directly to the modem and run myspeedmeter.net after disabling all my AV/firewall software to max speed, I regularly get 800-900M down, 700+M up. This is with nothing else plugged into the modem, even a router.

If I connect my W520 directly to my RT-NT56U, even without setting jumbo frames etc. on the W520 and with all other settings being the same (i.e. no firewall/AV), I get similar speeds. However, this is only with nothing else plugged into the NT56U."

That seems promising for anyone looking for a modem for 150mbps...

Cloneman

join:2002-08-29
Montreal
kudos:4
reply to Optional
excellent find mario9999998.

Doeboye

join:2006-11-07
Canada
reply to Optional
So the curiosity was getting the best of me and I decided to test the maximum throughput with wireless on and off, of my Asus RT-N16 running TomatoUSB .

For anyone interested in trying, these are the steps that I followed (Thank you "Chuzein Part II"!! ):

»superuser.com/a/439919

A caveat: I did not connect directly from one computer to the other through the router. There was a ProCurve unmanaged switch in between, as well as one hundred feet of cat6, 70 feet of cat6a (in the walls), and 25ft of cat5e (tested and running at gigabit speeds without issue).

Frankly, I was too lazy to pull everything apart, so I went with the easiest way to get the test working . I doubt a straight connection would have made a significant difference.

Also, I did not perform the most scientific of tests. I was merely interested if I would see transfers over 150mbps WAN to LAN, with wireless off. I shared a folder on the 'WAN' PC, and transferred to and from that folder from the 'LAN' PC.

Results (Rough averages):

Wireless Off
WAN to LAN: 12-13000 KB/s (94 - 101 mbps)
LAN to WAN: 14-16000 KB/s (110 -125 mbps)

Wireless On
WAN to LAN: 11-13000 KB/s (86 - 101 mbps)
LAN to WAN: 12-15000 KB/s (94 -117 mbps)

'Measured' in the Real-Time Bandwidth view of Tomato.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. It looks like wireless functionality does not take a large bite of the router's performance.

2. LAN to WAN is actually a bit faster

3. Anyone with an Asus RT-N16 who is considering getting the 150/10 package, will need to upgrade their router if they want to maximize download speeds.

Hope this helps anyone in a similar situation as I'm in!

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada

1 edit
Interesting, but for most people still more than fast enough. Matches up with SNB's testing.

arth33

join:2008-06-04
K1X1M4
reply to Doeboye
said by Doeboye:

Wireless Off
WAN to LAN: 12-13000 KB/s (94 - 101 mbps)
LAN to WAN: 14-16000 KB/s (110 -125 mbps)

Wireless On
WAN to LAN: 11-13000 KB/s (86 - 101 mbps)
LAN to WAN: 12-15000 KB/s (94 -117 mbps)

Wait, isn't LAN to WAN effectively the upload speed? If so, how are these speeds so high? I know this is a slightly unrelated question, but should LAN to WAN speeds be around 10mbps in a 150/10 connection?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

mario9999998

join:2000-08-25
Canada
said by arth33:

said by Doeboye:

Wireless Off
WAN to LAN: 12-13000 KB/s (94 - 101 mbps)
LAN to WAN: 14-16000 KB/s (110 -125 mbps)

Wireless On
WAN to LAN: 11-13000 KB/s (86 - 101 mbps)
LAN to WAN: 12-15000 KB/s (94 -117 mbps)

Wait, isn't LAN to WAN effectively the upload speed? If so, how are these speeds so high? I know this is a slightly unrelated question, but should LAN to WAN speeds be around 10mbps in a 150/10 connection?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

He's testing the router using two local computers (one on the WAN port and one on LAN) to test the router's max capabilities... not on an actual internet connection.

arth33

join:2008-06-04
K1X1M4
Ahh, gotcha. Makes sense now.