May 12, 2021 at 2:45 pm #13291Black BirdParticipant
- Posts 34
Howelse should it be? After restart they first have to prove for radar signals on ch. 120-128 which will be used for 160MHz. This takes 10 min. per definition.
It is enough to choose channel 100
I see it as 80 MHz between 98-114 ch. Where did I not see the other 80 MHz (most probably up to 130 ch )
The waiting time can be 11 minutes, isn’t it too much?
May 12, 2021 at 2:54 pm #13293Chelsea maniacParticipant
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Black Bird.
- Posts 21
Thank you for the replies, I have never heard of Asus-WRT before so glad I know now as I played around with Tomato on my old Netgear and DD-WRT on a Linksy router I once had because it offered a way to embed a VPN at router level, but these routers do that anyway and that is what drew me to them.
Sorry about my spelling and English grammar, but I’m dyslexic after a head injury I sustained and writing and spelling now confuses the hell out of meMay 12, 2021 at 3:02 pm #13295GrisuParticipant
- Posts 406
10 minutes are due to specs.
After a hit channels must not be used for at least one hour.
May 12, 2021 at 3:14 pm #13297
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Grisu.
1 After a hit channels must not be used for at least one hour.
Not sure what you mean ?
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom (J.G.Ballard).May 12, 2021 at 3:18 pm #13298Black BirdParticipant
- Posts 34
May 12, 2021 at 3:44 pm #13300GrisuParticipant
- Posts 406
If a radar signal is found on a channel while probing (listening) the router must not use this channel for an hour. Then it may test and use this channel again (if nothing is found).May 12, 2021 at 10:12 pm #13312El3rt1calParticipant
- Posts 8
I would not worry to much about the memory usage. Although I have managed to get it to crash once, (almost certainly on account of memory handling) I had to go out of my way to do it.
Before that memory usage with a 14 day up-time was hovering in the mid 70% region and it looks like buffers were being reused (occasionally the % used dropped a bit).
The other thing is that this is a newly released AX modem/router and firmware can take time to mature. It needs lots of people to own one, expose it to different conditions/setups and tell Asus when there are issues. My bet though is that given a relative lack of competition for single box AX solutions and slow rate of innovation in the market, they will get the ongoing sales that justify providing good support and firmware development.
I think it will a long time until there is something I would consider replacing it with, (say a single box wifi 6e solution with mesh capability and one or more 2.5 Gbe ports)May 17, 2021 at 10:27 am #13374vitt13Participant
- Posts 18
for those who are interested:May 17, 2021 at 10:28 am #13375
Hi, for those who are interested: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B08X2Q29XN?tag=bstore08b-21&linkCode=osi&th=1&psc=1
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom (J.G.Ballard).May 17, 2021 at 5:08 pm #13379
I’ve had the ax82u since Sunday, so far very happy, always at least 140mb ram free whatever I have experimented with (currently traditional QoS & app analysis on over the last day to help tune QoS ) so not concerned about memory so far. It does seem to be handling house traffic better than the 88u, but that only allowed for upload limiting and gave so little information that could be used to balance properly.
Plugging it in called for an update to 188.8.131.52.386_42438 as soon as it was online. It’s connecting to the ISP a lot faster than the ac88u which is interesting, but no real change on line stats so far. I’m guilty of hoping it might increase max rate eventually, but the line itself is old and remote so it may be the best it will ever maintain stability on.
For anyone with low latency/low bufferbloat needs : Traditional QoS with few or many rules and manually set bandwidth for the initial QoS setup still seems to win out over Adaptive whether bandwidth is auto or manually set, maintaining lower latency overall when testing UDP games.
Without deeper investigation The Game Gear Accelerator seems to only be a simple UI for adding your systems into Adaptive QoS as highest priority, Adaptive is switched to if you enable Gear Accelerator, it certainly does not appear significantly better than Adaptive enabled via other means, but I did not look into checking the exact config via telnet to see if there were any real configuration differences, maybe another time.
Traditional rules are not deleted so you can swap easily between the two if you wish to test.
Enabling Adaptive (or Gear) from Traditional causes a quick progress bar (<10s) which did not noticeably terminate traffic, going back the other way appears to cause a reboot however, or at least cut traffic for well over a minute. Considering the most valuable use of QoS is managing a multi-user network, I really don’t think it’s acceptable such operations aren’t always proceeded with a clear warning and opportunity to back out, especially as this example shows it’s not entirely predicable, that goes for any operation that will cause a disconnect really, not just QoS changes.
I’m going to pass on installing beta firmware for now unless there is a very compelling reason, and hope some of the new updates hit stable status soon.May 17, 2021 at 6:10 pm #13380
Thanks for your thoughts, most interesting, the DSL-AC88U had a good broadcom chipset, so little chance of you new DSL-AX82U syncing much higher.
Interesting your experience of QoS and UDP and manually allocating a set bandwidth per device is good but is time consuming .
Adaptive QoS uses the sfq queuing discipline for the DSL-AX82U
Traditional QoS uses fq_codel queuing discipline for the DSL-AX82U
Are you a keen gamer as I am interested how you tested ?
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom (J.G.Ballard).May 18, 2021 at 2:24 pm #13384
> manually allocating a set bandwidth per device is good but is time consuming .
I was testing altering bandwidth percentages by QoS priority rather than per device, but I think a slightly higher reduction on the overall bandwidth setting is a better solution, leaving the priorities at default. A FireTV Echo is causing real problems at times when in use with zero to 36Mbps in regular 3 second pulses even if set to a 20mbps device limit, it is more WAN disruptive than any P2P so far, if I can’t find a solution by router or by it’s own settings it may need replacing with a Shield.
Diabotical (free) and Quake Live are UDP based and excellent tools for testing latency. They have network graphs showing real time packet flow and packet loss and they’re very sensitive, sampling at a higher rate than ping/trace tool defaults, higher than many allow. As the latency is measured via the game’s usual UDP datagram, there is no risk of it being artificially shaped anywhere on route separately to the game traffic.
With Diabotical certain network conditions can also cause the game to apply automatic network restrictions, helping to prevent warp or abuse spoiling gameplay for other players, when these restrictions are in play the graph background turns red. The exact conditions that trigger this have not been specified but this is a third quality metric which can show even if latency and packet loss otherwise appear to be unaffected.
Testing involved playing while other consistent sources of traffic were seen or intentionally generated on the network, including SSL, OpenVPN, Netflix and Amazon streaming, a bittorrent of the latest iso from https://ubuntu.com/download/alternative-downloads .
Testing on an 18ms game server, the Adaptive QoS gave consistently higher latency in all heavy load test cases typically by 50ms or more and lost packets, the automatic network restriction was almost constant, with Traditional it was possible to eliminate that almost completely rarely gaining more than 7ms under heavy load (Ubunutu P2P) and without triggering the network auto restrictions, even if it they flared up for a moment on a large network spike it cleared very rapidly.
I need to investigate bufferbloat testing more, but dslreports speed test has a bufferbloat stat that was +200ms or more when using Adaptive QoS, if the experience in game had been better while the test was running I would have assumed it was entirely due to game traffic taking too much of a priority over the web, but the game was unplayable and the bufferbloat report also remained as poor when no game traffic was present so the QoS rule should have remained untriggered.
With Traditional rules and simply setting known game UDP ports to highest priority and the dl and ul main configuration set to 92% for sufficient reserve there is no need to alter the default bandwidth priorities and game experience is nearly flawless except under the most extreme loads, Adapative is simply not suitable for realtime gaming at all.
The Bufferbloat stat with this set up remained 2-5ms almost entirely after an initial spike at the start of the DSLreports traffic calmed.
TCP based games would not highlight problems as well due to TCP’s inherent ordering, retransmission, error recovery, only latency would remain an issue, but it is not often used for fast paced realtime games.
Thank you for the note on fq_codel, I was wondering if something like that may be the case, now that is known I don’t need to experiment with custom firmware just yet.May 18, 2021 at 2:54 pm #13385
I also noted this and expressed my concerns to ASUS at the time, ADAPTIVE QoS does have a Game Icon, but this made no difference and was not suitable for gaming.
Adapative is simply not suitable for realtime gaming at all.
I thought this might be of interest
Thank you for the note on fq_codel, I was wondering if something like that may be the case, now that is known I don’t need to experiment with custom firmware just yet.
You must be a Network Engineer by trade
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom (J.G.Ballard).May 18, 2021 at 3:52 pm #13386
If you are discussing things with Asus, their QoS FAQ point 9 is not very clearly written though top down priority overruling any lower rule is still conveyed, but far more importantly raises the question of – with order so important why is it not yet possible to rearrange the order?
In the worst case scenario wanting to alter any of the fields for the upper most rules other than the priority drop down results in having to rebuild the entire stack.May 18, 2021 at 4:26 pm #13387
I gave up with ASUS on that very point, hence my initial comment regarding taking time, not for the novice. but will try again and use your post as reference
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom (J.G.Ballard).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.