PDA

Bekijk de volledige versie : Wan --> Wireless Bandwidth



hplus
29-04-2005, 11:55
Hi everybody,

I was trying to benchmark my wl500g bandwidth and i noticed something odd...
Wan ---> Lan 1200Ko (its the speed of my internet connecting) this is ok
Lan ---> Wireless 2000-2500 Ko match usual speed of 802.11g this is ok
Wan ---> Wireless 500Ko ?? how come? i have no bandwidth (QOS) setting.
Does anyone noticed the same problem?
thanks

int
29-04-2005, 13:48
Frist you have to put here your firmware version....

tomilius
29-04-2005, 19:37
... and be sure to test twice and in both directions--at least, wireless->wan, not just wan->wireless, and lan->wan as well. Are you SURE that this is true? That's important--and, are you sure you're using the same units for each measurement (one might be kilobytes and the other kilobits)?

A lot of what I mentioned up there is most-likely irrelevant, but hey...

hplus
30-04-2005, 20:07
hi again,


I've checked the upstream speed
Wireless -> LAN 2000-2500ko
Wireless -> WAN 110ko
LAN -> WAN 110ko
So this is normal as my adsl uplink is at 110ko.

My firmware is 1.9.2.7-4


I also checked with another wifi card and it was the same so there is something wrong with the wireless - WAN link in the firmware

tomilius
02-05-2005, 04:49
Are you using a certain computer to check the wireless link each time? Try a different computer. I don't have this problem ... I hate it when people say that and rub it in, but I really don't--no offense. ;)

Oh, and try different firmware of course.

Antiloop
02-05-2005, 08:22
Wan ---> Wireless 500Ko ?? how come? i have no bandwidth (QOS) setting.

what is 500Ko ? 500 Kilobyte or Kilobit
and -how- did you measure this, pass some log files please

did you already restore configuration default, and tested without encryption or any stuff AND OR modification to your wireless setup

with what wireless card did you test, an asus card? if so which one

how far away from the unit'
testing from which page/ftp

tomilius
02-05-2005, 17:40
Well, the situation is strange, remember. According to hplus, the connection is normal and fast from WLAN to LAN but from WLAN to WAN it's a lot slower than it is from LAN to WAN. At least that's how I understood it. So the WLAN and LAN could communicate at 2500 "Ko," the LAN could communicate with the WAN at 1200 "Ko," but the WLAN could only communicate with the WAN at 500/110 "Ko." I've never heard "Ko" either, but I assume hplus means "Kb" or kilobits.

Sorry for referring to you in the third person there, hplus. Do I have the facts straight? I don't understand how all this could be so, but... Hey, is the LAN computer the DMZ host? Is the WLAN computer the DMZ host? With my old router I had the strange problem that the computer in the DMZ would get a connection about three times as slow as the others :confused:--not sure why that was to this day, but disabling it solved the problem.

hplus
03-05-2005, 00:10
hum,

sorry, "ko" is the french unit for kilo-octet which is kilobyte in english. Anyway you could have guessed i was talking in kbytes when i said "2000-2500 the usual speed of 802.11g". That was not the matter...
For the tests, i don't need anything accurate to test such a big difference!
I didn't set up any DMZ, and there is no encryption, and anyway I don't see how
all this can explain my problem.
I've used an intel 2200BG and a Dlink G650+ for the tests.
Remember my wireless computer can communicate at "usual speed" with the Lan but at a "low" speed with the internet, lower that the LAN-internet speed....
I will downgrade my firmware and test again.
Did somebody test the Wireless -- WAN speed with high speed link??? MAybe nobody noticed the problem, because nobody has an ISP with a 1200Kbytes downlink...

tomilius
03-05-2005, 00:34
SKIP TO "I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT" IF APPLICABLE

Well, you may still be screwing up the units. It's kilobits, not kilobytes; or do you seriously mean kilobytes? If so, I couldn't have guessed it, and I don't have a connection that fast. My connection is only (well, it claims to be but is slower) 4Mbps, or 4 megabits per second, meaning a maximum download rate of 500KB/s (as in a megabyte file could be done in a second). If your connection is seriously that fast (110KB/s upload is very nice and 1200MB/s is dreamy) then, well I don't know.

Anyway, the DMZ thing is relevant and can possibly explain your problem (if it also occurs in the ASUS WL-500g), and I've explained why, but you're not using DMZ (I'm making this remark because you say you don't understand how it explains your problem--read better).

I'm still very confused about your units. Please make sure everything is in the standard kiloBITS, not bytes, and that you have not mistaken one for the other (a byte is 8 bits so you can see how this could get confusing). There is no usual speed for 802.11g because there are too many variables, but the max is 54Mbps without afterburner or something like that, which is equivalent to 6.75MB/s (6750 KB/s).

OK, that was a pretty useless and insulting lesson on units if you actually know all of that.

"I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT:"
Assuming that you DO know what you're talking about (sorry for everything above if this is the case), you have a very nice connection :), but since nobody else has anything that fast, try troubleshooting the problem basically--I know how time-consuming it is, but it's necessary. Try things you don't even think could logically explain it. For example, turn off the firewall (you'd think if this were to solve the problem the LAN would have slow wireless access too, but just try it; you switched WLAN cards after all, and that was fairly illogical--the WL-500g is weird that way). Change a bunch of settings in the web interface. Also, uh, downgrade the firmware, yadda yadda yadda. And remember, it could be the computer itself, like some sort of.. settings.. somewhere.. like registry settings.. maybe.. err... I doubt it. Anyway, I'm sure you are trying/will try this stuff.

That's all I have to say about that... for now. I'd try to help you more, but you'd have to give me your internet connection.

Antiloop
03-05-2005, 00:51
measuring right now:

WLAN <> WAN speed is around 1300kilobyte/sec

explanation
my WAN connections are backed up by a 100Mbit connection between all 'external' devices this includes my external DSL bridge

ftp server connected behind WL500g (1)
WLAN client connected behind WL500gx (2)
WL500gx connected via LAN to LAN to WL500g (3)

thus wlan client uses wl500g(3) as gateway and in this case has some loss of speed due this configuration

I have used a ~300MB file

[R] 226 Transfer ok
Transferred: testmovie.mpg 296,06 MB in 3 minutes 53 seconds (1.300,6 KB/s)


and for reallife TO/FROM the internet situation it's 830kilobyte/sec as my DSL connection won't go any harder currently

tomilius
03-05-2005, 00:53
And this is 1.9.2.7-3c, Antiloop, according to your signature?

hplus
03-05-2005, 14:32
my internet connection is according to my ISP :
20Mbits ATM which is 15Mbit IP on the dowlink
but my real speed is what i can measure when i download : 1200 KBytes.
And for the uplink i a have somthing like 110Kbytes ( i don't remember the numbers given by my ISP)
It's a very good internet connection.

Off course i've tried many things before posting here. I've disabled everything that has some relation with networking. No encryption, no firewall (on both client and WL500g). I've tried many ftp servers with each time a test with both the WLAN and the LAN (less than one minute between the WLAN and the LAN test) at different time of the day.
I've tried many ways to benchmark my connection, by using web pages that tests the speed, by testing ftp with 2 different clients (leechftp, and filezilla).
And yesterday i've downgraded to 1.9.2.7 the offcial one. There is no difference, except that the download is now at 800Kbytes (it was 500Kbytes before) But there is still a problem...

And finally i found something interesting:

1 - When using an ftp client to dowload WAN -> WLAN, with one thread i have 800Kbyte and with two concurrent threads i have totaly 1200kbytes!!!

2 - And with the same client(different machine, the LAN one), same settings, same ftp site, but for WAN->LAN, I have 1200Kbytes for one or N threads

3- And with the same client, same settings but for LAN --> WLAN i have 2500Kbytes for one thread or N threads.

There is no speed limitation per thread on any of my client ( proof with test 1 & 3)
There is no speed limitation per thread on the ftp server side (proof with test 1 & 2)

And finally to be completly sure i did the test n 2 using the ethernet port of my wifi laptop (WAN-> LAN) and i've got 1200Kbytes with one or N threads...

I don't know what to conclude. It looks as if there is a limit per tracked connection for the WAN->WLAN forwarding in the WL500G linux.

tomilius
03-05-2005, 23:43
Well, as far as I know you're not going to get around connection tracking. See if using a different wireless router solves the problem, or try "top" and watch the cpu usage as you test this stuff.

hplus
04-05-2005, 10:23
[QUOTE=Antiloop]

You said you measured 1300kByte for the WLAN <-> WAN, was it with one single download or with concurrent download?

If i have some time i will connect the WAN of the WL500G with a 100Mb ethernet link to my computer, and benchmark the WLAN <-> WAN.

I've checked the cpu usage during download, no bottleneck here.
Unfortunetly i don't have any other wireless router to compare...

Antiloop
04-05-2005, 12:40
And this is 1.9.2.7-3c, Antiloop, according to your signature?
1.9.2.7-4 currently if i'm right..

Antiloop
04-05-2005, 12:43
You said you measured 1300kByte for the WLAN <-> WAN, was it with one single download or with concurrent download?

If i have some time i will connect the WAN of the WL500G with a 100Mb ethernet link to my computer, and benchmark the WLAN <-> WAN.

I've checked the cpu usage during download, no bottleneck here.
Unfortunetly i don't have any other wireless router to compare...
it was with one single download, and beside that normal surfing/email bla bla

tomilius
04-05-2005, 17:24
Hmm. Might want to update your sig... maybe, Antiloop, in regard to your versions...