1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Linksys E3200 Bad WiFi Performance

Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by Werner, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    I decided to replace my Linksys E2000 with a new E3200 since the 5GHz channel also got activated in version 104 of Tomato by Shibby.

    Flashing the firmware and configuring it went fine. For the 2.4 GHz network I used exactly the same settings (security and channel) as on my E2000.
    Screenshot: http://cl.ly/LhhT

    But then I noticed the horrible WiFi Performance.

    Internet (WAN) Speeds:
    2.4 GHz = 25 KB/sec
    5 GHz = 900KB/sec

    LAN Speeds (NAS to Desktop):
    2.4 GHz = 8MB/sec
    5 GHz = 8MB/sec

    Terrible speeds. And also notice the difference between WAN and LAN.
    Wired speeds are OK.

    What did I try to solve it?
    • Put back the E2000. Everything worked again, like before. But no solution.
    • NVRAM Reset (Trough GUI)
    • Flash to the older 102 Shibby version (same performance)
    • Flash to DD-WRT (same performance)
    • Flash to Stock Linksys Firmware (EVERYTHING WORKS OK)
    So the Stock Linksys Firmware works flawlessly. That confirms that there is nothing wrong with the hardware of the unit.
    Looks like the problems described in this topic are the same as mine: http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewto...&start=0&sid=59f396b843b522c26a03d3ed6e793963
    I hope you guys (or Shibby to be more specific) can help me fix this in a new firmware version. Or with some workaround, until a fixed firmware is released.
     
  2. lefty

    lefty Networkin' Nut Member

    I can't see from the pic if you are using channel width HT20 or HT40 but if you are using HT40 on channel 8 you are going to have overlap from other neighboring WIFI's around you.
     
  3. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    I am using Channel Width 40 on the Upper Sideband for years (also on my old E2000 setup) and it always works perfectly. Even when I put my E2000 back.

    Also a strange thing I noticed: The download is crap, while the upload it totally fine. I tested this on my iPhone 4S using the Speedtest.net App.
    Screenshots: http://cl.ly/LimD and http://cl.ly/Lk43
    And please remind: The internet speeds are fine when using LAN connection or when using my old E2000 router. So the internet connection is fine.
     
  4. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    I just changed my Wireless Network Mode to G Only and now the speeds are much better. Can't say they are what they used to be, but much better. I now managed to get a download speed of 2,4 MB/sec. But of course this is not a solution. I hope it's a hint to the location of the problem.
     
  5. lefty

    lefty Networkin' Nut Member

    This isn't your E2000 and i'm only telling you what i see in the pic, you switching it up to G only mode should tell you, because with G-Only you stopped blocking/overlapping/hogging almost all the 2.4 spectrum with your HT40 N configuration.
     
  6. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    Can you explain why my old E2000 is working perfectly with exactly the same settings? I expected the E3200 to be a good replacement, but at this point I'm thinking about putting my E2000 back. I just can't understand what is causing this trouble. It must be something inside the firmware, can't think of something else.
     
  7. lefty

    lefty Networkin' Nut Member

    No i won't explain it, and as i said, this isn't your E2000 and you have to realize different routers are going to have different results. You switching to G-Only and throughput being better should have confirmed that what i am stating is true - as i said i'm only stating what i see in the pic you posted, which if you use channel 8, you are going to have overlap on either side, especially with HT40.
     
  8. Mangix

    Mangix Networkin' Nut Member

    here's a weird thing to try.

    flash to stock firmware, reset settings.

    flash dd-wrt. do NOT clear the nvram. instead, go to the web interface and set the user/pass to root/admin.

    then go to telnet and do 'nvram show | grep http_passwd' and copy everything after the = sign.

    flash tomato through the web interface.

    log in to tomato using root/long string copied previously

    now check performance. in my experience, the wifi is actually fine when doing this but when I clear the nvram, the signal strength goes down. Further investigation is needed to figure out which settings make that difference. 'nvram show | grep wl' should hold all the answers.
     
  9. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    Interesting Mangix. So there are some crucial differences between the stock and third party firmware. This is what I was suspecting.

    Lefty: I appreciate your replies, but your comments about Channel and Channel Width and my E2000 being a different router don't make any sense. If the Channel and Channel Width on my E2000 are working perfectly fine, then they should work perfectly fine on my E3200 also. I also don't think Linksys thought: "Hey lets make a new and more expensive router then the E2000 but then with far worse performance". This is clearly a bug.

    I now tested the following firmwares:
    • DD-WRT
    • Tomato by Toastman
    • Tomato by Shibby (102 and 104)
    They all had the same performance. And did you see the screenshot of my phone? Download speed is almost zero, but the upload speed is just fine. So it's no bandwidth problem, or is it?
     
  10. lefty

    lefty Networkin' Nut Member

    So you are saying the E2000 and the E3200 are the same router? They are not the same router, different routers are going to have different results, even using the same settings, not sure why you don't realize this or why it doesn't make any sense to you...If different routers using the same settings should always perform the same, why not just make 1 router and not make any other choice - since they are going to perform the same anyhow?
     
  11. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    No, I'm trying to make clear that this is a firmware issue instead of just a difference between two routers. I know every router is different. But imo you are trying to say that these problems are caused by just some settings. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

    I'm glad Mangix recognized my problem. And I also hope one of the developers will join us in this topic, so I can help them work towards a solution.
     
  12. Mangix

    Mangix Networkin' Nut Member

    This isn't a problem with the firmware as much as it is a problem with the stock settings that tomato and dd-wrt give. The broadcom drivers that are used in tomato/dd-wrt are similar to the ones used by stock firmware.

    As I don't have an E3200 or an E2000(although I have dealt with the latter previously) I can't point the problem out.

    One thing I have also noticed is that when using RT builds, the signal drops slightly as compared to RT-N at the same NVRAM settings.

    At the end of the day, an NVRAM dump containing the stock firmware 'wl' settings needs to be posted so it can be looked at.
     
  13. lefty

    lefty Networkin' Nut Member

    It is exactly what i am saying, and Mangix is saying this as well, you just aren't getting it... and are locked into a mode of 'this worked on my E2000'. But hopefully someone else can pipe in and help you, because i can assure you its not a firmware bug, matter of fact when i google 'bad wifi performance on E3200 with tomato' i get nothing but this post, so it seems rather suspicious that this is the only result that comes up, if this were a firmware bug many users of the E3200 would be reporting this issue, but they aren't. Hopefully as you request one of the devs will help you resolve the problem, though it is doubtful they will because its not a firmware problem.. it is possible that you may have faulty hardware, but i am fairly sure it isn't firmware related...

    Best Regards
     
  14. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    Then how do you declare that the problems are solved when the Stock Linksys Firmware is flashed back? This tells me the hardware is ok...
     
  15. lefty

    lefty Networkin' Nut Member

    I said that it is possible that you may have faulty hardware, never said its for sure, and to me you are once again comparing apples to oranges, stock firmware and tomato are going to be totally different and the results thereof, but as i said, hopefully a dev will pipe in and help you since you know what the problem is and are unable to accept that it may be how you are setting it up.
     
  16. Mangix

    Mangix Networkin' Nut Member

    How about this: follow the instructions I posted above, enable ssh on tomato, log in, and type
    Code:
    cd /tmp
    nvram show | grep wl > a.txt
    
    Then, use something like WinSCP to download the a.txt file and post it here.

    Alternatively, you could just go to Tools > System after flashing tomato and type 'nvram show | grep wl' and post that output. I am unsure if the box there will show all of the variables. It's worth a try.
     
  17. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    It didn't exactly go as planned, since the NVRAM somehow automatically gets reset when flashing a new firmware from the original firmware. Unlike third party firmwares the original firmware admin does not have a "Erase NVRAM" checkbox.

    I tried both Linksys > DD-WRT and Linksys > Tomato, but both times the settings got reset.
    And sadly also the performance dropped back down when the firmware was flashed. Linksys firmware was perfect performance, time after time.

    But maybe some traces of the Linksys firmware are left behind in the NVRAM, so I will post it anyway.

    NVRAM contents before Reset:
    http://cl.ly/LnG6

    NVRAM contents after Reset:
    http://cl.ly/Ln7P
     
  18. kthaddock

    kthaddock Network Guru Member

    You displaying your : sshd_hostkey= ;)
     
  19. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    Hehe, didn't see that. Not really a problem since the router will be reset again anyway, but I removed it anyway. Thanks.
     
  20. Mangix

    Mangix Networkin' Nut Member

    Ah but the original firmware does have an erase nvram function. The thing is, it's a button. Should do the same stuff though.

    from a quick look, the settings that are relevant are:

    Code:
    wl0_country_code=EU vs. US
    wl0_lazywds=0 vs. 1 // Why is this enabled in tomato?
    wl0_obss_coex=1 vs. 0
    wl0_radarargs40_11n=5 4 4 100 0x6b0 0x6d9 0x2c40 0x7f07 12 195 2000 25 400000000 1000 6000000
    wl0_radarargs_11a=5 4 4 100 0x2b0 0x2f0 0x0 0x0 8 500 4000 10 240000000 1000 3000000
    wl0_radarargs_11n=5 4 3 100 0x6b0 0x6f0 0x2c40 0x7f09 6 300 1200 25 200000000 1000 3000000 // not sure if any of these do anything
    wl0_radio_pwrsave_level=0 //not present in tomato but might be worth adding. not sure.
    wl1_ampdu=on\
    wl1_amsdu=off\ // both auto in tomato.
    
    the last two have to do with the 5GHz radio and may be irrelevant. and also there are more wl1 settings.

    also the auto-nvram clearing thing is rather weird. both tomato and dd-wrt(at least newer versions) show the currently used nvram. it should be bigger than when reset.

    I have a linksys E1000v2 that i could do similar testing on. But my issue with that is that the max nvram for it is 32KB so it might be impractical.
     
  21. robE89

    robE89 Serious Server Member

    For me it`s kinda otherwise...i have better wi-fi performance with tomato than with stock, maybe not much better but still better(kinda high ms altough?)

    channel 10 and 20 mhz.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. VirtualLarry

    VirtualLarry Serious Server Member

  23. Werner

    Werner Serious Server Member

    Well I didn't really test my 5GHz performance yet. I just noticed the bad 2.4GHz performance.
    In the meantime I put my old and trusty E2000 back, speeds are all fine again.

    I will wait for a few days to see if one of the developers pops in the discussion, else I might just sell the E3200.
     
  24. Flepp

    Flepp Reformed Router Member

    Hello

    I just registered to this forum, to confirm that i had similar performance issue with tomato firmware.

    I moved from dd-wrt to Tomato, because of lack of 5ghz support of dd-wrt

    My router is configured as Wireless bridge (2.4) to a MIFI Huawei E589 device. Wireless connection dropped performance suddenly after some time of working.

    wl0_lazywds=0 vs. 1 // Why is this enabled in tomato?
    wl0_obss_coex=1 vs. 0
    wl0_radarargs40_11n=5 4 4 100 0x6b0 0x6d9 0x2c40 0x7f07 12 195 2000 25 400000000 1000 6000000
    wl0_radarargs_11a=5 4 4 100 0x2b0 0x2f0 0x0 0x0 8 500 4000 10 240000000 1000 3000000
    wl0_radarargs_11n=5 4 3 100 0x6b0 0x6f0 0x2c40 0x7f09 6 300 1200 25 200000000 1000 3000000 // not sure if any of these do anything
    wl0_radio_pwrsave_level=0 //not present in tomato but might be worth adding. not sure.

    I patched the above modifications in the ssh console and problems disappeared after reboot.
    Id did the same for wl1 5ghz.
    nvram commit
    reboot

    Must now say that since this mods, performance drops to MIFI device disappeared.
     
    Chris686 likes this.
  25. Chris686

    Chris686 Network Newbie Member

    Going to necro this thread, since it's one of the top results for this router. I was having an identical issue to the OP, and was getting pretty frustrated. Performance on 2.4GHz was awful... 100 kilobits or so. Flepp's fix worked.

    However, the only three things I implemented were:
    wl0_lazywds=0
    wl0_obss_coex=1
    wl0_radio_pwrsave_level=0

    One could probably toggle each of these to figure out which one is actually causing the problem, but performance is now great on 2.4GHz as well as 5GHz. Thanks Flepp.
     
  26. Jaeger

    Jaeger Network Newbie Member

    for me the wl0_obss_coex=1 is what made the difference. Once I made that change I got an immediate jump in 2.4 performance.
     

Share This Page