Recommend me a new Router

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Edit: I should add that the single band N router that I've been using and setup to a limited degree has been disappointing. I tested it copying a file from the SSD on my Desktop (Wireless-N) to my laptop SSD (Wireless-N) and get about a 5 Mbps transfer speed. I'm not really sure what the weak link is, but I would think I should be getting 20 Mbps to 30 Mbps or so from what I've read. Any advice on normal transfer speeds would be appreciated.

If there are any other b or g devices connected to a single band n router then that will drop you down to g speeds. That is why simultaneous dual band routers are so nice. Also apartments are about the worst places ever to use a wireless network. Grab some wifi sniffing software and see what channels are being used around you. Most people stick to the default channel (which if I remember right is 6 or 7 on most brands of routers) so if you look around and choose a less used channel you should be able to increase your speed and range. But sometimes the best solution is in an apartment is 1000 feet of white Cat6 stuffed under the base boards or stapled into the corner between the ceiling and the top of the wall

Yeah, again, you might want to look at powerline networking. Apartments tend not to have stellar wiring, so it wouldn't shock me if you could pull a hundred megabits out of a powerline bridge.

Ha! I wasn't aware that was possible! I knew of the concept. I'll check it out.

With good wiring I think they have it up to around half a gigabit now.

Don't they actually do better with bad wiring? That is, the fewer circuits you have, and the longer the runs are, and the less overall complexity, the more likely it'll work well?

Is there an easy way to setup multiple routers to make roaming easier? Think 3 wifi routers strategically placed throughout a building to canvas the entire facility and I want a device to connect to one and be able to auto-roam without having to select a different network and/or enter a password.

Is this possible? What are my options? The routers in question are running DD-WRT, if that's pertinent.

Look for routers that support bridge mode.

We currently have 3 of the WRT54GL

Yeah, you can do that with WDS, Wireless Distribution Services, but it's never worked very well. There are two major problems with WDS.

First, WDS needs to be configured on the routers; they all need to know about every other router. Then they automatically repeat any data they see from clients, once each for every other router in the WDS network. So that means that any given bit of traffic will always be repeated, significantly cutting your overall bandwidth. Your bandwidth is cut to 1/number of routers, so with 3 routers, your network would run at 1/3 speed, but with much better reach.

Second, clients don't like to give up on an AP. They really, really don't. Most clients, once they hook to an AP, will ferociously stay connected to it as long as they can see it, even if another AP in the same network is closer. So roaming isn't very seamless, no matter what -- if you move, but you don't move far enough, you'll have to stop and start your WiFi to get your laptop to grab the new closest router.

So, I tend to think you're better off just running three separate networks.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, you can do that with WDS, Wireless Distribution Services, but it's never worked very well. There are two major problems with WDS.

First, WDS needs to be configured on the routers; they all need to know about every other router. Then they automatically repeat any data they see from clients, once each for every other router in the WDS network. So that means that any given bit of traffic will always be repeated, significantly cutting your overall bandwidth. Your bandwidth is cut to 1/number of routers, so with 3 routers, your network would run at 1/3 speed, but with much better reach.

Second, clients don't like to give up on an AP. They really, really don't. Most clients, once they hook to an AP, will ferociously stay connected to it as long as they can see it, even if another AP in the same network is closer. So roaming isn't very seamless, no matter what -- if you move, but you don't move far enough, you'll have to stop and start your WiFi to get your laptop to grab the new closest router.

You only need WDS if the additional access points lack a wired path out to the Internet. If each access point is plugging into a LAN that reaches your Internet connection, no WDS needed.

However, that second caveat still applies. As described here, it's supposed to be the case that you can simply set up multiple access points with the same SSID and security settings, and your client will bounce from one to the other when the first one gets too weak. But as you said, the reality is that they really hate giving up on the weakening signal. It's way, way too easy to end up in a state where your client is clinging to a weak distant signal and ignoring the very strong signal close by, because it connected to the other one first. Then you have to stop and re-start wifi to get the client to choose the close signal instead.

Well, I just ended up getting the RT-N66U. Since I had to get a wireless router no matter what, I didn't want to mess with the power line option.

Anybody know of some good ways to test and benchmark the wireless network? I was going to try LAN Speed Test v2.0 tonight. I'll also try copying a large amount of files between my laptop and desktop (both on the wireless network) because that's the main thing I'll be doing.

I'm sticking with the stock most recent firmware for now. The interface is okay so far, and it was easy to set up.

Lastly, does anyone have a link to a good explanation of the 2.4 GHz band vs. the 5.0 GHz band? I did some digging and got a few differing explanations. I had hoped that the router would just pick the best one. Right now, I set them up with the same name/password and only 1 network shows up which I connect to. However, I can change the name of the 5 GHz one and then there are 2 different networks. I don't know yet if the router is automatically choosing or how to test it.

I'm in an apartment complex with tons of routers and all sorts of devices, so I'm guessing that if I had to choose, I should go with the 5.0 GHz band to avoid noise. I'll have to do some testing to see what works best for me.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I'm in an apartment complex with tons of routers and all sorts of devices, so I'm guessing that if I had to choose, I should go with the 5.0 GHz band to avoid noise. I'll have to do some testing to see what works best for me.

If you need to check for noise, do a Google search for Inssider. It's a little application that will scan the airwaves for other WiFi networks and tell you which bands they're running on.

shoptroll wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I'm in an apartment complex with tons of routers and all sorts of devices, so I'm guessing that if I had to choose, I should go with the 5.0 GHz band to avoid noise. I'll have to do some testing to see what works best for me.

If you need to check for noise, do a Google search for Inssider. It's a little application that will scan the airwaves for other WiFi networks and tell you which bands they're running on.

Thanks! I'll definitely fire that up for fun at the very least.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I'm in an apartment complex with tons of routers and all sorts of devices, so I'm guessing that if I had to choose, I should go with the 5.0 GHz band to avoid noise. I'll have to do some testing to see what works best for me.

If you need to check for noise, do a Google search for Inssider. It's a little application that will scan the airwaves for other WiFi networks and tell you which bands they're running on.

Thanks! I'll definitely fire that up for fun at the very least. :)

+1 for inSSIDer -- it helped me iron out some quirks when I set up my own Wireless-N router last summer (Linksys E4200). It's a bit higher than your price range (I see NewEgg currently has a deal on it for $150 with a $20 store credit returned after a few days), but I get some pretty decent speed out of it. DD-WRT is supported on the machine, but I haven't tried it. The one problem I had with the router was the firmware's lack of a proper onboard DNS server, and therefore, an inability for me to connect to my local servers by given name. I assume that DD-WRT would resolve (ha!) this issue for you -- the only reason I didn't try it at the time is because DD-WRT didn't support the 5GHz radio; it does now.

A few general tips for improving performance:

1) While you can set up both 2.4GHz and 5GHz antennas to broadcast the same SSID, and therefore make it possible for your machines to roam between the two frequencies at will (depending on current location, signal strength, etc), I found that for me, Windows was choosing the 2.4GHz channel almost exclusively since it was a slightly stronger signal, despite 5GHz having completely dead airwaves. I now have separate 2.4 and 5 SSIDs, and consciously choose which one when setting up a machine. This has the added advantage of preventing an 802.11a-only client from seriously degrading your 802.11g/n 5GHz performance.
2) [This is a big one -- caused me lots of grief] When configuring your router's wireless security, be sure to use AES, not TKIP. Using TKIP will instantly limit yourself to 54Mbits (I think?), per specification. Switching to AES instantly rocketed my throughput to a pretty steady 360Mbits.

merphle wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I'm in an apartment complex with tons of routers and all sorts of devices, so I'm guessing that if I had to choose, I should go with the 5.0 GHz band to avoid noise. I'll have to do some testing to see what works best for me.

If you need to check for noise, do a Google search for Inssider. It's a little application that will scan the airwaves for other WiFi networks and tell you which bands they're running on.

Thanks! I'll definitely fire that up for fun at the very least. :)

+1 for inSSIDer -- it helped me iron out some quirks when I set up my own Wireless-N router last summer (Linksys E4200). It's a bit higher than your price range (I see NewEgg currently has a deal on it for $150 with a $20 store credit returned after a few days), but I get some pretty decent speed out of it. DD-WRT is supported on the machine, but I haven't tried it. The one problem I had with the router was the firmware's lack of a proper onboard DNS server, and therefore, an inability for me to connect to my local servers by given name. I assume that DD-WRT would resolve (ha!) this issue for you -- the only reason I didn't try it at the time is because DD-WRT didn't support the 5GHz radio; it does now.

A few general tips for improving performance:

1) While you can set up both 2.4GHz and 5GHz antennas to broadcast the same SSID, and therefore make it possible for your machines to roam between the two frequencies at will (depending on current location, signal strength, etc), I found that for me, Windows was choosing the 2.4GHz channel almost exclusively since it was a slightly stronger signal, despite 5GHz having completely dead airwaves. I now have separate 2.4 and 5 SSIDs, and consciously choose which one when setting up a machine. This has the added advantage of preventing an 802.11a-only client from seriously degrading your 802.11g/n 5GHz performance.
2) [This is a big one -- caused me lots of grief] When configuring your router's wireless security, be sure to use AES, not TKIP. Using TKIP will instantly limit yourself to 54Mbits (I think?), per specification. Switching to AES instantly rocketed my throughput to a pretty steady 360Mbits.

Higher than my price range? But... but... Thanks for the tips about how the switching on 2.4 and 5 GHz channels works with SSID. That's EXACTLY what I wanted to know regarding Windows (I had noticed that OSx seems to do well at deciding which channel to use, but I couldn't find info on Windows when I looked briefly. I'm checking out inSSIDer now to do some inspection. I may end up separating them too depending on how things look.

I've got the encryption set to AES too, so no worries there.

Lastly, does anyone have a link to a good explanation of the 2.4 GHz band vs. the 5.0 GHz band?

2.4Ghz has better inherent range, as the lower frequencies will penetrate buildings better. So, all other things being equal, it will carry further. But the channels are narrower, so the maximum data transfer speed is a lot lower. There's some point out in the middle distance where the increased penetration of 2.4Ghz overcomes the better bandwidth of 5Ghz, and you end up getting more bytes/second through the putatively 'slower' link.

However, 2.4Ghz also has a lot of competition for bandwidth. If you can get a reasonably strong 5Ghz signal out to your devices, and many current 5GHz-capable devices come with much better antenna rigs than what you could get a few years ago, the lack of interference will often swing the balance in favor of the 5Ghz band again.

It really depends on how big a house you're in, and how crowded your local airwaves are. Lots of wireless traffic should push you toward 5Ghz -- a big house or big yard should push you toward 2.4. And remember you can use both in separate situations, so the laptop way out in the front room may be happier on 2.4, while the media center that's 15 feet from the hub prefers 5.

Here are some fun images to show my situation. The 2.4 GHz band looks really clogged compared to the basically empty 5 GHz band. Thoughts?

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/niTinl.png)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/GWEHwl.png)

You should be able to guess that my network is the only one with a fun name.

Here's what my router's traffic manager shows when I copy 2.13 GB of files from my laptop to my desktop. 3-5 MB/s seems way low. I've always had this problem, and I don't know where the bottleneck is.

2.4 GHz:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/BWm5el.png)

5 GHz:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/l67Usl.png)

So, it seems that Windows 7 IS deciding to use the 5 GHz channel for my desktop and the 2.4 GHz channel for my laptop. Both my laptop and my desktop are capable of using the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels. It is interesting how that was handled.

I just got the Netgear 4500.
And thak you also for the AES/TKIP bit. I had it on AES already but I didn;t know that otherwise.

I saw a huge drop in signal with 5Ghz when I went up a couple floors where 2.4 would be 4-5 bars.
I have mine on separate SSID (came as so by default) so I left it. So far I have been very happy. I've not tried different channels yet to see if I get better performance. When I checked out teh output using WiFi Analyzer (android app) it showed all channels as being the same for 5Ghz

Happy so far.

When testing out the speeds of my new router I found that I had a huge bottle neck in my HD speed and interface sections. In order to test out my gigabit network I had to transfer data from like 3 or 4 different computers to the single fastest computer in the house (which also has multiple HD's on multiple buses) in order to get up over 400 Mb/s. Chances are your laptop's HD speed and or bus speed is the bottleneck. And even if you have an SSD a lot of them aren't that much faster than 7200 RPM drives (i.e. buyer beware because SSD doesn't instantly mean awesome).

Also don't forget networking speeds are normally figured in Megabits/second not Megabytes/second so if you are using something that is telling you MB (the normal shorthand for Megabyte) you need to multiply that number by 8 in order to get the correct Mb (Megabit). So 3-5 MB equals 24-40 Mb/sec. 40 Mb/sec is probably pretty close to the real world performance maximum for a g wireless network or an n network with both n and g devices connected to it. g devices will drag a whole n network down to g speeds which is why simultaneous dual band is the way to go. I have mine setup with a 2.4GHz b/g network and a 5GHz n network so that only n devices can get on my fast network.

Generally, the higher the channel, the better the throughput you'll get... unless the channel is already clogged with other routers.

Tuffalo, it looks like your 2.4GHz area is a bit congested in your channel (6). You might try moving to a different channel (4 or 9, perhaps?) -- or if possible, switch your laptop over to using the 5GHz channel as well; the increase in overall bandwidth at 5GHz will almost certainly offset the "cost" of having both machines talking over each other on the same wavelength.

Also, you probably ought to try eliminating some possibilities... can you plug in ethernet wires temporarily to each machine (simultaneously, and alternating) to see which leg is causing the most lag?

Rykin wrote:

When testing out the speeds of my new router I found that I had a huge bottle neck in my HD speed and interface sections. In order to test out my gigabit network I had to transfer data from like 3 or 4 different computers to the single fastest computer in the house (which also has multiple HD's on multiple buses) in order to get up over 400 Mb/s. Chances are your laptop's HD speed and or bus speed is the bottleneck. And even if you have an SSD a lot of them aren't that much faster than 7200 RPM drives (i.e. buyer beware because SSD doesn't instantly mean awesome).

Also don't forget networking speeds are normally figured in Megabits/second not Megabytes/second so if you are using something that is telling you MB (the normal shorthand for Megabyte) you need to multiply that number by 8 in order to get the correct Mb (Megabit). So 3-5 MB equals 24-40 Mb/sec. 40 Mb/sec is probably pretty close to the real world performance maximum for a g wireless network or an n network with both n and g devices connected to it. g devices will drag a whole n network down to g speeds which is why simultaneous dual band is the way to go. I have mine setup with a 2.4GHz b/g network and a 5GHz n network so that only n devices can get on my fast network.

I've always understood the byte versus bit thing, but I haven't been keeping close track of which is which when I've been testing. Good to know that 3-5 MB would be about normal (although, I had hoped you could do better). Thanks for clarifying that. I will be more careful when I'm checking that from now on.

merphle wrote:

Generally, the higher the channel, the better the throughput you'll get... unless the channel is already clogged with other routers.

Tuffalo, it looks like your 2.4GHz area is a bit congested in your channel (6). You might try moving to a different channel (4 or 9, perhaps?) -- or if possible, switch your laptop over to using the 5GHz channel as well; the increase in overall bandwidth at 5GHz will almost certainly offset the "cost" of having both machines talking over each other on the same wavelength.

Also, you probably ought to try eliminating some possibilities... can you plug in ethernet wires temporarily to each machine (simultaneously, and alternating) to see which leg is causing the most lag?

Thanks for the channel suggestion! I'll try a different one on the 2.4 GHz band.

If at all possible, you want to use a channel that's 5 away from anything else you can detect. Ideally, this means everyone should use only channels 1, 6, and 11.

I'd been under the impression that if you couldn't do that, you wanted to stay as far away from other channels as you could, but I was reading recently that you can actually get better throughput by choosing the same channel as another network. This is because when the signals are adjacent, they interfere with each other, but the APs can't see each other to negotiate around the contention. If they're on the same channel, even if they aren't on the same network, they can see each other and run through the usual collision-avoidance routines. This means you can get better throughput than having them on nearby channels.

Why on earth they decided on 11 channels, but grouped them so tightly that they interfere with one another, will likely be an eternal mystery to me. Why not just have 3 that don't interfere, instead of 11 that do?

My router just bit it last night, so I'm unexpectedly in the market for a new one. I was using a Linksys WRT-54, and it seemed to work fine.

Looking around now, I see Newegg has the NETGEAR WNDR4500 on sale for $155. It seems like a great discount, but is there any reason this would be better for a home network than something like the ASUS RT-N53, on sale for $40?

I don't think I need anything fancy, as most of the devices are wired in the entertainment center, and the wifi is just used for a laptop and a game console.

soonerjudd wrote:

My router just bit it last night, so I'm unexpectedly in the market for a new one. I was using a Linksys WRT-54, and it seemed to work fine.

Looking around now, I see Newegg has the NETGEAR WNDR4500 on sale for $155. It seems like a great discount, but is there any reason this would be better for a home network than something like the ASUS RT-N53, on sale for $40?

I don't think I need anything fancy, as most of the devices are wired in the entertainment center, and the wifi is just used for a laptop and a game console.

I get a solid connection on my 4500 anywhere in my home of 3 stories. The router is in the basement.
This is all on default settings so with some tweeking you may get better results.

Best router so far. We were able to remove the adapter from my wife's laptop (had to use one with the last router for some reason. built in antenna would not connect reliably) that had issues on it's own and we have not had any disconnects like I did with my DLink.
get it.

I'd love to, but not sure it's not overkill. I'm in a 900 sq. ft. apartment, and like I said, most of the devices are in the same room as the router, if not immediately adjacent. It may be a great router, but is it worth the extra $100 for my purposes?

Malor wrote:

If at all possible, you want to use a channel that's 5 away from anything else you can detect. Ideally, this means everyone should use only channels 1, 6, and 11.

I'd been under the impression that if you couldn't do that, you wanted to stay as far away from other channels as you could, but I was reading recently that you can actually get better throughput by choosing the same channel as another network. This is because when the signals are adjacent, they interfere with each other, but the APs can't see each other to negotiate around the contention. If they're on the same channel, even if they aren't on the same network, they can see each other and run through the usual collision-avoidance routines. This means you can get better throughput than having them on nearby channels.

Why on earth they decided on 11 channels, but grouped them so tightly that they interfere with one another, will likely be an eternal mystery to me. Why not just have 3 that don't interfere, instead of 11 that do?

I looked into the channel thing on 2.4 GHz further, and it will automatically select the "best" channel depending on what is on the network. When I had a look at it recently, it had changed channels to a spot where there was less interference. For now, I'll leave it on automatic because it seems like it's actually working intelligently enough. For example, on the 5 GHz band in the image I posted above, it selected a channel furthest away from the 1 other 5 Ghz signal. It may have not made the perfect pick in the image I posted above for the 2.4 GHz channel, but when I tried it a different time, it seemed to pick OK. I haven't monitored it enough to see how often it changes channels.

The Asus RT-N66U router has worked fantastic so far. I haven't had any issues. After 2 weeks or so, it has been rock solid.

Edit: It looks like DD-WRT added the RT-N66U to their database and they say DD-WRT is fully compatible. I'll put it on eventually, but I think I'll leave it as is for now.

DD-WRT is supposed to be compatible with the RT-N53, by the way, according to DD-WRT's website.

Maybe not appropriate for the thread, but I finally put Tomato on my Netgear WNR3500L two weekends ago. For the longest time I thought the router was going south. Random packet loss, dropped connections, etc. I've been following this thread thinking I'd need to pick up a new one. But wow! Tomato really has kicked this thing back to life. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I just wish I had gone ahead and done it two years ago when I first though of doing it.

As you can see from my results earlier in the thread, I think it was worth getting a dual band router. There was only 1 other person on the 5 GHz band, but the 2.4 is really clogged (although not as bad as yours). However, if you are okay with the connection and performance you are getting with the WRT54GL, there would be no reason to upgrade. I had to upgrade because my roommate moving out needed the one we were using.

I got the Asus RT-N66U. It's now supposed to be DD-WRT compatible, but I haven't put that on there yet because I haven't had any issues with the stock firmware (after updating it). I've been very happy with it this last month and have had zero issues so far.

Edit: Can that work laptop use the 5 GHz band? If not, the MBP would probably be the only thing capable and it wouldn't be worth getting a dual band router. You would have to get USB dongles for your main laptop, and that seems like a hassle.

Cant he just choose a channel that is not congested? I see a few here.
6 is congested but 7 has none on it.
Do a test for channel strength and pick one.

I'd like to pick you brains on a router recommendation. We just moved and our new area is completely flooded in the 2.4 spectrum. So I was thinking of getting a router that would support 5.0 ghz and that should clear up our issue. We don't have a very big apartment so range should not be an issue. We currently have a WRT54GL running DD-WRT. It's a shame they just never made an N and 5ghz version. Here are some details below.

IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-7BTPgg3SXsU/T3N54roIbkI/AAAAAAAAQLA/9JSQNGhAYdw/s948/2.4ghzspectrum_list.JPG)
IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-GxW4XG7p4Js/T3N54pRkKtI/AAAAAAAAQLE/Xpg1TKSWlho/s948/2.4ghzspectrum.JPG)
IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-WIdqzwJ22O0/T3N55IkjaJI/AAAAAAAAQLQ/pzTgD7e2gdQ/s736/2.4ghzspectrum_excel.JPG)

Is it worth getting a 5ghz setup? If so, which router and NICs for my laptop (Dell XPS 1500z) and Clover's (mid-2011 MBP)? I know mine doesn't do 5ghz as it's a Intel WiFi Link 1000 BGN but I am unsure of Clover's MBP. The only other devices we have is a Lenovo T410 (work laptop), two android phones, a Xbox 360 (wired) and a Logitech Revue Google TV (also wired).