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

tomato 1.25 vs. 1.28

Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by M0g13r, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member


    router is an WRT54GL v1.1 with modified cfe from WRT54G v4 overcklocked to 263 mhz with sd mod on an 50/10mbit line

    iam using tomato Version 1.25.8515 .5 RAF ND Thor MOD since 2009

    i have tested all tomato 1.28 mods with sdhc (slodki/shibby/teaman) and non sdhc from toastman ... coz i like the new features

    have on all the tested 1.28 mods 10 mbit lower download speeds with same basic settings and qos off

    i have no idea why

    any suggestions ?

    thor mod

    teaman 1.28.0020

    tested with simultaneous linux distri downloads from different servers too ... same result :\

    greetings from germany :)
  2. Monk E. Boy

    Monk E. Boy Network Guru Member

    Was 1.28 the 2.6 kernel or the 2.4 kernel. I believe 2.6 offers worse performance on the WRT-54GL.
  3. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    all kernel 2.4
  4. teaman

    teaman LI Guru Member

    Hi there!

    According to Victek's page, there's a special build focused on performance available:

    I'm not sure exactly /why/ that particular build seems to deliver such performance levels, but it might have something to do with the kernel version (v2.4.20, whereas all other K24 builds mentioned on your first post are probably using v2.4.37).

    Also, there might be at least one other thing, possibly specific to Teaman builds: the existence of IP Traffic (not absolutely sure about those other builds: i.e. if those do have ipt-account modules and/or if those are enabled).

    Long story short: when the firewall service 'starts' (i.e. firewall rules get loaded, once WAN is up), there's a few additional/extra rules being loaded on those recent Teaman builds:
    root@top:/tmp/home/root# iptables -nvxL | grep account
      847428 59635669            all  --  *      *            account: network/netmask: 192.168.xxx.0/ name: lan
        5917  1254162            all  --  *      *            account: network/netmask: 192.168.xxx.0/ name: lan1
          0        0            all  --  *      *            account: network/netmask: 192.168.xxx.0/ name: lan2
    You can see those on /etc/iptables (notice there are 3 rules, one for each LAN bridge I've set up on my router, yours might have just one...):
    root@top:/tmp/home/root# cat /etc/iptables | grep account
    -A FORWARD -m account --aaddr 192.168.xxx.0/ --aname lan
    -A FORWARD -m account --aaddr 192.168.xxx.0/ --aname lan1
    -A FORWARD -m account --aaddr 192.168.xxx.0/ --aname lan2
    So, if you're curious about this whole thing... and willing to check/test if these might be related to your case, there's something you could try...

    First, wait for WAN to come online (let those 'regular' firewall rules be loaded on router). Then, log in via telnet/SSH and run the following commands:
    root@top:/tmp/home/root# cat /etc/iptables | grep -v account > /tmp/iptables
    root@top:/tmp/home/root# iptables-restore < /tmp/iptables
    Basically, you'd be simply reloading all your iptables/firewall (except for those rules related to network traffic accounting)...

    And.... please let us know if their presence/absence improves and/or changes your results in any way ;)

  5. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    hi teaman

    the victek Tomato RAF 1.28.121006 build is slower too .... have testet it several months ago

    i will check the iptables rules tomorrow with your last build and report the result

    perhaps it has something to do with ppoe ?!
  6. teaman

    teaman LI Guru Member

    Just remembered something else you might just wanna test/check: your current NAT target could make a difference... (SNAT or MASQUERADE, on Advanced/Firewall).

  7. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    hi teaman

    reloading the iptables rules changed nothing :\

    snat and masquerade are equally fast
  8. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    with stock tomato 1.28 i get full speed too
    with slodki builds also ... only that built based on tomatousb 1.28.8754 is 5-7 mbit slower
  9. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    I've noticed something similar, but because my line speed is so low I noticed it in other ways.

    I'm using a WRT54GL.

    I've been using this version of Tomato http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/speedmod-with-tc-atm-qos-patch-for-adsl.31541/ (it's a 1.28 mod for K24) and now switched to the new Toastman builds (K24). For some reason they are noticably slower. Logging in via ssh doesn't take 2-3s anymore, but 5-7s. Loading webpages has gotten slower too, even with QoS deactivated and no other traffic on the line. I've measured the times and it takes 1.5 to 2 times more the time than before to load a webpage. Because everything seems to be affected I suspect some change in the kernel.
  10. teaman

    teaman LI Guru Member

    Hi there!

    I've been thinking about all this... trying to figure out some kind of possible (co)relation?... but still wondering... (as per previous post):

    Which kernel versions are running on each of those versions/builds (i.e. 'faster' x 'slower' results)? v2.4.20.x or v2.4.37.x ?

    Also - is there any difference between builds with the 'old' (standard) versus 'new' wireless driver (ND)?

    Did you guys notice anything else 'in common' (or different) between these builds X results?

  11. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    looks like nd and non nd doesn't matter
    no difference with tomato-sdhc-ND-1.28.01 and tomato-sdhc-1.28.01

    thor mod have kernel 2.4.20
  12. teaman

    teaman LI Guru Member

    Ok, then... so it looks like things seem to boil down between builds running kernel v2.4.20.x and v2.4.37.x? Is that the key difference? Or... perhaps something else? ;)
  13. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    hi teaman

    seems to be that the kernel is the cause

    incidentally Tomato_RAF_1.28.121006 makes full speed too ... must be a failure by me :\ sry

    some dmesg from the various builds

    i think u know your own build :D
  14. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    hi teaman

    is it much work to make a WRT54G build with kernel 2.4.20 to test for me ? ;)
  15. teaman

    teaman LI Guru Member

    There's a somewhat old build still available for download - if I'm not mistaken, this particular build ships with kernel v2.4.20:

    Feel free to give it a try (and let us know how it goes), but keep in mind these images have been built more than 6 months ago and... probably won't support some of the most recent features (i.e. MultiSSID, IP Traffic, etc...).

    Any specific features you've been looking to run on a build with kernel v2.4.20?
  16. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    Just wanted to give everybody an example of what slower means.

    I've been using StableNet Express as a monitoring tool. It can monitor loading times of different sites. You can see the results in the attached screenshot. If I'm not mistaken the the from 2.4.20 to 2.4.37 occured somewhere in 2009. It would be very interesting to see, how the K26 builds do on a WRT54GL, but I haven't had enough motivation to check this, too.

    K24 comparison 2.4.20 vs. 2.4.37.png
  17. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    hi teaman

    http://tomato-sdhc-vlan.googlecode.com/files/tomato-sdhc-vlan-1.28.7z does full speed dl

    it would be nice to have always the last build also with kernel 2.4.20 for older devices like the WRT54G's if possible :)
    if is to much work to do it allways i need only the tomato-WRT54G_WRT54GLUSB-1.28.0021Teaman-SDHC-VLAN-VPN build ... usb is not realy needed but i like the smb and ftp service


    @ porter

    tested 4 u victek tomato-K26-1.28.8603MIPSR1_RAF-Std it performes like the kernel 2.4.37 builds, same slow dl speed
  18. teaman

    teaman LI Guru Member

    Cool - glad to hear that!

    Unfortunately, having always the last build also with kernel v2.4.20 is not really an option at this moment... If I remember correctly, IP Traffic was the main reason I ended up switching everything onto kernel v2.4.37 builds - I couldn't make that module 'compile' under v2.4.20 :(

    What else is out there? Since there's not many of these older routers capable of doing MultiSSID, there's seems to be not much of a point in having them upgraded with the lastest MultiLAN GUI, don't you think?

    Also, if the main goal would be... speed, then I wonder: are there any of those new/updated features that would really be useful/interesting to have on a build specific to run on such routers?

  19. M0g13r

    M0g13r LI Guru Member

    hi teaman

    hm ... ok .... then let it all away what does not work ;)
  20. Porter

    Porter LI Guru Member

    The question remains what's slowing down our routers. Does anyone have a clue what could be the reason for 2.4.37 to be slower? The simplest comparison might be to do a diff of the two different configs and see what changed...
  21. juntok_abot

    juntok_abot Networkin' Nut Member

    if I use the firmware with K2.4.37 from RAF 1.28.8515 ND Std NoUSB, website response took a noticeable some seconds, tried the firmware with K2.4.20 from RAF 1.28.121006 runs responsive.
    how about others?

Share This Page