Wireless LAN Transfer Speeds

Discussion in 'Tomato Firmware' started by mau108, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    What speeds are people getting with tomato on their devices? I have Victek's build on my RT-N16 and my wireless speed is horrible. File transfer between my server to my wired desktop is on average 100mb/s, file transfer from my server to my laptop with N and 500GB Seagate 7200RPM Hybrid drive is 1.8mb/s MAX (it usually drops) and this is with the router 6-10 feet away.

    Let me know if this is normal because I could of sworn I was getting faster on my WRT54G with tomato then I am with this router and tomato.

    Maybe it's my settings, please post speed results and wireless settings if different from stock.

    Also doing a web speedtest from my laptop I get about 8mbits down, on my wired machine I get 40mbits +.

    I am just seeing what Windows 7 is reporting in terms of transfer speed, not using any special tools.
  2. occamsrazor

    occamsrazor Network Guru Member

    I'm getting 10-11MB/sec on E3000 with Victek build and Macbook Pro, LAN-to-Wireless-N.
  3. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    weird for some reason it's limiting my laptops speed to 54mb/s vs the 300 it should be able to do. My laptop has a Intel 5100 AGN built in adapter. I could of sworn I was getting faster speeds before.

    I am going to revert back to tomatousb (toastman's build) to see if it helps.
  4. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    Not sure this will help but my two cents.

    Your client software should report somewhere what type of connection / speed was established.

    If it's negotiating an 802.11g connection, that would be a 54Mbps connection at best. But if you're only getting "1.8mb/s MAX", that's only slightly more than 3% of a 54mb/s connection so at a loss to explain that.

    As the RT-N16 is 2.4GHz only with no 5GHz support, you won't be connecting with 802.11a or the 5GHz flavor of 802.11n. So besides 802.11b/g, that leaves 2.4GHz 802.11n. To get 300Mbps on this type of connection you'll need the channel width on both the client and router set wide, or 40MHz. If either is set to 20MHz then the best max speed is cut in half or 150Mbps. I believe Intel client cards are notorious for not allowing a 2.4GHz wide 40MHz setting. So that might explain SOME speed loss but not what you are seeing.

    Seems like I've read that the Interference Mitigation setting can have some impact on performance and WMM should be enabled but think that is the default now. Historically power set too high can have negative performance impacts. If your settings are truly stock then I think your power will be set to 17mW and mitigation will be set to "WLAN Manual"? My RT-N16 TX power is set to 42mW and seems to work fine close or far away. There is a description of the Interference Mitigation settings here. Mine is currently set to "WLAN Auto" and is working OK for me.

    I can't think of any other settings off the top of my head so perhaps others will chime in. Perhaps you could post your settings and see if anyone notices something wrong.
  5. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    Well I have seemed to almost triple my speeds by doing the following:

    * Update firmware on router to Toastman's latest TomatUSB build
    * Set the bandwidth to Auto from 20mhz on my Intel card
    * Interference Mitigation is at WLAN Manual
    * Beacon Interval is at 48.

    Have my wireless setup as follows:

    Channel - 8-2.447ghz
    Channel Width - 40mhz
    Control Side Band - Upper

    Security: WPA2 Personal
    Encryption: AES
    Group Key Renewal: 3600

    Still ain't satisfied thoe...what are you getting TexasFlood simply transferring a file from your desktop to your laptop?
  6. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    increasing the beacon interval seems to speed things up a little bit, still not 10-11mb/s but 6-7 now.

    beacon interval is now at 120. I'm heading to bed, will see what people have for me to try out tomorrow.

    This forum seems to be dead now, is there another site people are heading too ?
  7. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    Just did a test. I transferred a 353,162,144 byte file in 76 seconds between a Windows XP laptop plugged into the RT-N16 and an old Ubuntu laptop with a PCMCIA 802.11n wireless card that I -think- is set to 2.4GHz 20MHz width. So that's what, about 4.6MBps or 37Mbps? So I've got room for improvement, maybe I can learn something about the settings myself. But it doesn't seem painfully slow in normal use.
  8. wasp87

    wasp87 Network Guru Member

    As I posted in the other thread..... I reset NVRam and Interference Mitigation DEFAULTS to "WLAN Auto". I've heard this setting is bad and should be disabled.... but that is pretty old info and am still trying to find out what the best setting is nowadays.
  9. Black6spdZ

    Black6spdZ Addicted to LI Member

    WPA2 is needed for N
  10. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    Are you really only getting 6-7megabits per second or do you actually mean 6-7megabytes but typing a small "b" meaning bits when you really mean bytes which should be a large "B"? Not meaning to be picky, just trying to be sure I understand what you're posting. And yes I've noticed it's a bit dead around here but hoping it picks up.
  11. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    When you do a file transfer between server and laptop, windows 7 reports in bits or bytes?

    I didn't pay attention. I think it may be bytes.
  12. rhester72

    rhester72 Network Guru Member

  13. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    I actually don't run Windows 7 so can't check but seems like it's MB/s which is megabytes per second. Again, Big "B"=bytes, little "b"=bits. Bytes of course are made up of 8 bits so represent 8 times as much data, which I'm sure nearly everyone already knows. I'm just restating the obvious as getting it wrong will throw data rate math off by nearly an order of magnitude.
  14. bluesky

    bluesky Networkin' Nut Member

    I have the wireless performance issue before with RT-N16 tomatousb. After I change the cordless 2.4Ghz phone to 1.9Ghz phone, Wireless feel faster than ever. The 2.4Ghz phone interference is killing all wifi device. every thing is working fine right now with default router wireless setting. Below is my testing with doing file transfer from basement desktop pc to 2nd floor's wireless pc. Router locates in basement. I hope it could help some one to solve problem. :)



  15. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    Interestingly enough, at least to me, hah, since I was doing speed tests, I tried changing the TX power from 42mW to 17mW and it -seemed- to improve my transfer times slightly from mid 70s second range down to around 70 seconds. not a lot of difference but enough for 17mW to be my new standard setting. Every little bit helps and I'm happy to use the lowest power setting that gives me good results. I feel all "green" now...
  16. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    Good point. My sister had the same problem solved by going to a 1.9GHz aka dect 6.0 phone. And I had microwave interference for years until I learned to minimize by using channel 1 instead of up in the 9-11 channel range I had been using on my 802.11g range. Apparently microwave interference is worse on the higher end of that range.
  17. wasp87

    wasp87 Network Guru Member

    I decided to try disabling Interference Mitigation again, and it improved my signal strength significantly as well as WAN -> WLAN N speeds. There is also tons of interference around my router.. Such as TONS of other AP's, microwaves, metal bed frame, etc.

    Also changing TX Power from 17 to 42 helped me significantly, but I don't know if I want to deal with the higher radiation.

    Also I didn't know that N only works on WPA2..... Hardly makes sense to me but I'm also going to try switching to WPA2.
  18. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    I'm using "regular" WPA on my RT-N16 and N is working just fine. In a quick test I didn't notice improvement from disabling interference mitigation, maybe I need to do some more tests. I have a microwave, metal around and LOTS of other APs around me. The amount of interference I see seems to primarily depend on the channel I pick, very little on 1, lots on 6. Looking at the interference level on the main page under Wireless is always "acceptable" on 1, and often "severe" on 6. I haven't really tried the others as I know 1 is where I want to be to avoid microwave interference.
  19. wasp87

    wasp87 Network Guru Member

    If you have channels 1-6.... doesn't that mean you're NOT using the required (for high speed wireless n) 40Mhz Wide channel width?
  20. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    I don't have any 2.4ghz phones in the house, only 5.8 and 1.9 Dect 6.
  21. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    Seemingly not, see attached pics showing it running that way and how I set it up...

    Attached Files:

  22. mau108

    mau108 Addicted to LI Member

    Well I did some iperf testing between my server and desktop and server and laptop

    Server to Desktop
    Client connecting to, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
    [156] local port 50435 connected with port 5001
    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [156]  0.0-10.0 sec   506 MBytes   425 Mbits/sec
    Server to Laptop

    Client connecting to, TCP port 5001
    TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
    [156] local port 49209 connected with port 5001
    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [156]  0.0-10.0 sec   16.6 MBytes   13.9 Mbits/sec
    My wireless channel is 7 as no other AP's are on it in my neighborhood.

    Beacon Interval is 120
    Interference Mitigation is WLAN Manual (this made the biggest change)
    Transmit Power is 17
  23. wasp87

    wasp87 Network Guru Member

    Strange. I do not get channels 1-5 while using 40Mhz, on either Tomato, OR DD-WRT.

    EDIT: Ah, I see what you did. Lower control sideband instead of higher...... hmm...
  24. bluesky

    bluesky Networkin' Nut Member

    I have same setting but channel change to auto because too many wireless router in my neighborhood.
  25. TexasFlood

    TexasFlood Network Guru Member

    It's all about what's clear for you. In my neighborhood folks seem to tend to stay on whatever the default is which has historically been channel 6. However a quick check just now shows even distribution between channels 1, 6 and 11 with a few oddballs (3, 4, 5, 9) in between. Newer routers seem to be making it easier for a novice to change that. But the channel 6 ones must be closer as they cause me much more interference than channel one since I can tell just by watching the main tomato screen interference level being reported.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice