>(Outdated) wiki page
>TomsGuide "Best Wi-Fi Routers 2016" - Shill edition
The best router is literally one with good hardware that is also easy to flash openwrt onto.
On that subject, I need a router with 4 port gigabit switch, wan port and wireless that has good hardware and is easy to flash openwrt onto. Any suggestions? I am thinking of a newer revision of the TP-Link TL-WR1043ND because I currently have the Rev1 which was easy to flash openwrt onto but the newer revisions have better hardware.
Your name is still the thread title
Also, are the multitudes of antennae a meme? I need a router that is able to reach semi isolated rooms in my house and am looking for a better router
I've always wondered what actual difference does a pfsense machine have over a regular router. Other than the specs, power draw, and certain functionalities. If you had them both doing strictly the same, no additional packages or anything else would there be a noticeable difference in performance?
are people still able to get cheap wr703n or clones? or is there new hotness for tiny-ass usb powered routers? I always keep one on the network if only to keep whatever crap running in screen
E8400, 4GB DDR3, can't remember motherboard, two port Intel pro/1000 server nic. Completely passive.
For home use it's only the fact that it has additional features. You won't notice any performance increase there. Given enough users/connections it would make a difference. You wouldn't use a home router as the core router at an office for that reason.
Yes, it's really easy. You can flash an image that's already been compiled for your router from their downloads page https://downloads.openwrt.org/
You can also compile your own custom image with the image builder for your architecture, but this is of course not required. Building your image however has the added benefit to also slipstream packages inside firmware itself, which saves space due to compression, as opposed to installing them later on using the repositories.
How does my router/switch build look?
>ASUS N3150M-E microATX motherboard + Celeron N3150 quadcore
>4GB DDR3-1600 RAM
>cheap $40 60GB SSD
>Intel 7260HMWDTX1 802.11a/b/g/n/ac PCIe x1 card
>Intel Ethernet Server Adapter I340-T4 4-Port PCIe x4 card
>Generic USB3.0 Adapter PCie x1 card
>used microATX slim case
I don't understand why (I understand its a fun little project) people build full on desktop computers when trying to build a router. You don't need that much storage, and having too much memory in a router isn't necessarily a good thing. No to mention how much power that thing will eat up. You'd be better off getting a cisco router off ebay (I bought an out of warranty one for like 70 bucks) or buy a specialized appliance for it, like a router board.
As in previous threads I'm still using Netgear R6100 with latest stable OpenWrt, probably one of ten users judging from the little amount of talk and info about it. The ac radio doesn't work but from what I've heard ath10k is an unstable mess anyway, and the radio used to stop working about once a week on official firmware requiring manual reboots. I run cables for devices requiring extra speed and connection stability so it's not a big deal.
Wouldn't recommend this piece of hardware but it's much nicer than the WNR3500L I ran everything on in the past. 100MB of NAND storage and ample amounts of RAM (128MB), I can run pretty much anything I want on it.
Got SQM/fq_codel nginx, fwknopd, pn910nd, collectd and some DDNS updater jobs running on the system with lots of space and memory to spare
>You don't need that much storage
I have a spare 60GB SSD laying around that's not getting used. I'll probably run a lot of applications on PFSense or FreeBSD.
>having too much memory in a router isn't necessarily a good thing
I could pair it down to a single 1GB stick, but that ironically costs as much as a single 2GB stick.
>No to mention how much power that thing will eat up
Celeron N3150 are rated for a max consumption of ~10W at load, but I'm not sure about the Intel Ethernet adapter. It might draw more power than the CPU itself.
Would it be better if I downgraded the board to a quad-core Braswell Atom mini-ITX board and buy a separate switch to connect to the router?
> are the multitudes of antennae a meme?
>doesn't know about MIMO technology
>can't 802.11 n or ac
I pitty a fool
I'm using a cisco rv215w. It's not wonderful but for 50$ it does the job. I'm not paying for a service that gets over 100mbit/s so there's not purpose in me buying a router with a gigabit interface for home use.
I do wanna drop the money on this lab kit though while I work on my CCNA
>I'm not paying for a service that gets over 100mbit/s so there's not purpose in me buying a router with a gigabit interface for home use.
You can use the speed for internal traffic even if the uplink is slow...
Last week I had a problem where my router started dropping connections and responding slowly and it turned out the CPU was being max'd out. Could barely connect into it to dig around, or search online for hints for that matter.
After a while I gave up and rebooted, but after a minute or so back up the CPU started churning like crazy again, constant softirqs. Syslogs had lots of multicast mentions so I went into my 'switch' (older router running as dumb cabled AP) and turned off a feature called something like 'efficient multicast forwarding' which brought the router's system load down to 2-3 instead of 15-17 where it barely could manage to do routing
Still high though, as it usually works at loads in the 0.1-0.4 area, but things got back to normal after disabling IPv6 support for the LAN interface (wasn't using that anyway)
It's still fucking weird though. Router had ran for 90 days without a hitch. The switch had been introduced to the network and configured two weeks prior to this meltdown
Anyone have any ideas to what could cause this kind of thing?
AC66U master race reporting in. Best router I've used.
looked into it & i guess the gl-ar150 is the next big thing in tiny chinese routers? serial pins already on board, extra eth port, bit more ram/flash, choice of pcb or external antenna models, $25
Is the wrt54gs any good? I need something decent but cheap
I've been pretty happy with my Asus RT-AC68U for a few years now.
Still haven't bothered to put DD-WRT on it yet, but I plan to one of these days when I'm bored enough and remember to do it.
I stubbornly held on to mine until just last year. It was an amazing router in its day, but honestly, it doesn't hold up to anything new nowadays. Only thing I can give it is that the fucker sure was sturdy. Never gave out on me even once. Cheapo routers these days, while on paper being far superior to it, are probably more likely to be flimsy pieces of shit.
Better to always have an unmanaged switch behind the router? Instead of everything going to the router seperately??
Or would file transfers (between devices connected to the switch box) then have an even longer path to follow?
Not concerned about the ethernet from the switch to the router creating a bottleneck since the speed of the network is gigabit and my internet is appx 110Mbps down
nice brand that offers nice routers.
17 shrekels, 100M/s ethernet, 300M/s wifi (between wireless clients? where does the extra 200 when connected to wired clients, WAN)
30 shrekels, 1G/s ethernet, 300M/s wifi (between clients and wired clients, WAN)
I've got these for myself and friend before and they are nice machines. They are also compatible with open sores firmware on some models.
>Better to always have an unmanaged switch behind the router? Instead of everything going to the router seperately??
I suppose what you're worried about is that the router may get overloaded with network traffic that it would hamper your WAN speeds/traffic but it should make no difference at all on a small network.
>One thing: because this is a version 1.* model, update the firmware to fix a USB file sharing vulnerability.
>Because of this, I removed 1 star: the router itself is worth 5 stars."
I sometimes hate when normals review technology.
Hmm, so I can get 80-90 MBps between my synology and pc, everything is gigabit, my download speed is around 110Mbps, so I can get pretty close to saturation.
Was even considering getting a 10gb nic for my pc, and a 10gb switch, I think that way, my pc could always for sure get its full gigabit from lan, and the full speed from the router. Even though the connection between the router and the switch, and the server and the switch are gigabit, the switch should detect the pc is 10gb, and allow the full 2gbps in if both were saturated (hypothetically)?
Cheaper alternative is I just get a gigabit managed switch and use priority qos to keep my near gigabit transfers from bogging down any devices access to wan bandwidth.
>Cheaper alternative is I just get a gigabit managed switch and use priority qos to keep my near gigabit transfers from bogging down any devices access to wan bandwidth.
I'm having trouble picturing your idea of the network structure.
Lets say you have a router with four gigabit ports and a gigabit wan port (heading to your modem).
If you are transferring files from port 1 to port 4 you will saturate those ports (hopefully!) but you won't interfere with ports 2 or 3 accessing the Internet over the WAN port, unless the router is really shit. Every single one of those ports can be running at 1Gbps concurrently.
Same principle applies if the router has the modem built in.
If you add a switch to one of the ports on the router then things get tricky. Every device on that switch has to share that one link, so if you saturate it with network file transfers then they will have trouble accessing the Internet.
Now. If you buy a managed switch, or get a couple of cheapish routers with multiple ethernet ports, you could set up trunking between the two routers to increase the bandwidth of that one link beyond what a single client could saturate.
Hmm elaborate on the trunking?
And in your example, the issue is, when transferring files from port 1 to 4, the pc connected to port 1 has issue connecting to any of the other ports.
Also to keep with this example.. My server is already behind a unmanaged switch, with a console on that same switch, and actually that switch is connected to the router port 4... If a file transfer is occuring between port 1 and 4, anything else on the switch (which is connected to port 4) has issues connecting to the internet.
Sooo I would need a managed switch that can prioritize once device from the unmanaged switch connected to it, and prioritize my pc's connection to the router over its connection to other lan devices..
The reason I have an unmanaged switch is since I have only one cable running 50 ft, down stairs, where my server and console are located, and my pc is upstairs where the router and modem are; where I am contemplating puting the managed switch.
I disabled my routers QoS since with 110Mbps down; hw acceleration helps.
I know within windows I can set qos, but I don't know if thats honored and that my router will prioritize my internet outbound over my lan outbound traffic from my pc.
Then I want to prioritize my consoles traffic that is downstairs on an unmanaged switch with my server.. Even in a situation where the connection is not saturated in gaming situations I'd want those packets prioritized. I figure a managed switch can do that, and that I would not need to even get rid of the unmanaged switch?
>Hmm elaborate on the trunking?
Trunking is something you can do between managed switches (routers) to bind multiple ports to act like a single link. So if you make a trunk of four Gigabit ports you create a single four Gigabit link between the two routers.
If all the clients are one Gigabit then it would effectively take four clients to saturate it.
I guess the problem would be that most wireless routers that you can install openwrt on have a max of four ports, so at best you could set up a three Gbit trunk plus one client in the wireless router or two two Gbit trunks and two managed switches.
QoS on your main router might be enough. I honestly don't have much experience setting up QoS rules but seeing the router is on the link you don't want to be saturated by network transfers you should be able to prevent it with the proper rule on there.
Any cheap one that is reliable? (Connection doesn't randomly drop)
I'd use it only 7 hours at the most, but without a pause.
I'm yuropoor, so something under 50$
Again, yuropoor, so internet speeds are 15Mb/s at best, needs to have 4 ports and of course an antenna for WiFi (g/n/whatever)