Any consumer router than can handle 100mbps+ with QoS on?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Talk about first world problems...

Recently my ISP upgraded me to 100/35 from 60/20. I was using an E3000 with tomato, QoS configured perfectly to make sure that my line never completely clogged and my latency didnt rise while gaming, no matter what else was going on in the network. Pings to a local server stayed under 15ms, because I was always able to restrict downloads and such to 80% of my line speed using QoS.

Once the ISP updated me to 100/35, it was lag city any time a download was active. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but there was a noticeable increase in latency, and a speedtest barely broke 60mbps. Running a ping in the background showed pings to a nearby server jumping from ~10 to ~70+. Turned QoS off and I could actually pull down 115/35, and pings jumped from ~10 to ~30, occasionally dropping a packet. Not the end of the world, but I was still getting a better experience with the slower speed.

So began my search for a router that can handle 115mbps with QoS on....really, I dont need prioritization with this much bandwidth, just some simple traffic shaping that can restrict the bandwidth of specific devices so the line never fully clogs. But so far, I've completely failed. Tried a Linksys EA6300, but I couldnt stand the interface, too fisher price for me, and the QoS was absolutely beyond useless. Tried an ASUS RT-N56U, and the QoS didnt even seem to restrict the bandwidth correctly either, and the interface was a total nightmare. Upgraded to the rt-AC66U, same issues as the 56u - terrible interface, QoS doesnt really work. Tried DD-WRT, but it couldnt pull more than 75mbps under any circumstances. Found a Tomato build for it, and with QoS on, I can swing about 80mbps, but it crushes the router CPU and latency spikes as well. With QoS off, its basically the same story as every other router I've tried...full speed, mild rise in latency because I can't stop any device from hogging the entire line.

I know I don't *need* QoS at 115mbps...but it bothers me that I've basically lost control of my network. I just don't like the idea that a simple large file download can cause lag and packet loss because I have too MUCH bandwidth, and my router can't handle it.

So what's even left out there for me to try? Do I need to step up to a corporate router or something if I want to control traffic with this much BW?
 
Last edited:
D

DeathRayLoveMachine

Member
Jul 18, 2009
122
0
0
I am experiencing some strange and new form of Nerd Envy, where I wish my network had this guy's problem just so I could have a go at solving it.
 
Cabletek

Cabletek

Member
Sep 30, 2011
176
0
0
BD2003 said:
Talk about first world problems...

Recently my ISP upgraded me to 100/35 from 60/20. I was using an E3000 with tomato, QoS configured perfectly to make sure that my line never completely clogged and my latency didnt rise while gaming, no matter what else was going on in the network. Pings to a local server stayed under 15ms, because I was always able to restrict downloads and such to 80% of my line speed using QoS.

Once the ISP updated me to 100/35, it was lag city any time a download was active. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but there was a noticeable increase in latency, and a speedtest barely broke 60mbps. Running a ping in the background showed pings to a nearby server jumping from ~10 to ~70+. Turned QoS off and I could actually pull down 115/35, and pings jumped from ~10 to ~30, occasionally dropping a packet. Not the end of the world, but I was still getting a better experience with the slower speed.

So began my search for a router that can handle 115mbps with QoS on....really, I dont need prioritization with this much bandwidth, just some simple traffic shaping that can restrict the bandwidth of specific devices so the line never fully clogs. But so far, I've completely failed. Tried a Linksys EA6300, but I couldnt stand the interface, too fisher price for me, and the QoS was absolutely beyond useless. Tried an ASUS RT-N56U, and the QoS didnt even seem to restrict the bandwidth correctly either, and the interface was a total nightmare. Upgraded to the rt-AC66U, same issues as the 56u - terrible interface, QoS doesnt really work. Tried DD-WRT, but it couldnt pull more than 75mbps under any circumstances. Found a Tomato build for it, and with QoS on, I can swing about 80mbps, but it crushes the router CPU and latency spikes as well. With QoS off, its basically the same story as every other router I've tried...full speed, mild rise in latency because I can't stop any device from hogging the entire line.

I know I don't *need* QoS at 115mbps...but it bothers me that I've basically lost control of my network. I just don't like the idea that a simple large file download can cause lag and packet loss because I have too MUCH bandwidth, and my router can't handle it.

So what's even left out there for me to try? Do I need to step up to a corporate router or something if I want to control traffic with this much BW?
Click to expand...


Buy a commercial router? Or do what I saw one of my subs do get a nice router for you and then chain a g rated access point off of it for everyone else, they top out around 12Mb for downloads, so unless you have 8+ people you have essentially guaranteed your bandwidth off the good router.
 
M

Mushkins

Golden Member
Feb 11, 2013
1,631
0
0
TBH, you really dont need QoS for your usage with that kind of bandwidth unless you're running unrestricted uploads and downloads on a crazy amount of torrents and trying to game at the same time. I run a Comcast connection half that speed with no QoS *and* have crazy amounts of downloads going almost 24/7 while gaming with no difference in performance.

The cheap answer is keep your Asus N66u with Tomato/DDWRT and turn off QoS. You can always restrict downloads on the application level if you're torrenting.

The expensive answer is no, consumer routers haven't really reached the point of supporting these kinds of speeds AND doing that level of QoS at the same time. Most of the mid range off the shelf stuff doesn't even support 100+Mbps *without* QoS very well. You'd need to buy a low end business router. 100+Mbps to the home is still a very new offering from ISPs in the US.
 
B

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Mushkins said:
TBH, you really dont need QoS for your usage with that kind of bandwidth unless you're running unrestricted uploads and downloads on a crazy amount of torrents and trying to game at the same time. I run a Comcast connection half that speed with no QoS *and* have crazy amounts of downloads going almost 24/7 while gaming with no difference in performance.

The cheap answer is keep your Asus N66u with Tomato/DDWRT and turn off QoS. You can always restrict downloads on the application level if you're torrenting.

The expensive answer is no, consumer routers haven't really reached the point of supporting these kinds of speeds AND doing that level of QoS at the same time. Most of the mid range off the shelf stuff doesn't even support 100+Mbps *without* QoS very well. You'd need to buy a low end business router. 100+Mbps to the home is still a very new offering from ISPs in the US.
Click to expand...

I do it by application where I can. Torrents are easy. Steam as well. But doesn't seem anything I can do to prevent an Xbox or PS3 from downloading full blast. A lot of times I'll fire up a few downloads on the PS3, and swap over to play some cod on the Xbox. It still plays fine, but I would prefer not to compromise.

Any suggestions for a commercial router that isn't too scary for someone used to custom firmware? Something that can handle 300ish Mbps with qos/bw limiting by port if possible, IP/MAC at least. I'd like to keep it for a few years, I'm sure they'll bump speeds again before too long. (Yay for competition!) Doesn't need to be wireless or have lots of ports, I can always just use the routers as APs and switches.
 
Last edited:
M

Mushkins

Golden Member
Feb 11, 2013
1,631
0
0
BD2003 said:
I do it by application where I can. Torrents are easy. Steam as well. But doesn't seem anything I can do to prevent an Xbox or PS3 from downloading full blast. A lot of times I'll fire up a few downloads on the PS3, and swap over to play some cod on the Xbox. It still plays fine, but I would prefer not to compromise.

Any suggestions for a commercial router that isn't too scary for someone used to custom firmware? Something that can handle 300ish Mbps with qos/bw limiting by port if possible, IP/MAC at least. I'd like to keep it for a few years, I'm sure they'll bump speeds again before too long. (Yay for competition!) Doesn't need to be wireless or have lots of ports, I can always just use the routers as APs and switches.
Click to expand...

What's your budget? TBH most of the major brands have small business models with web interfaces. If you can handle QoS on a DDWRT/Tomato router you can handle any of these.
 
B

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Mushkins said:
What's your budget? TBH most of the major brands have small business models with web interfaces. If you can handle QoS on a DDWRT/Tomato router you can handle any of these.
Click to expand...

I don't really have a predefined budget, just looking for a good value. Whatever it takes to get the job done without going overboard on features I don't need.
 
E

Enigma102083

Member
Dec 25, 2009
147
0
0
BD2003 said:
Is that really going to be enough? That's less expensive than the asus.
Click to expand...

It's rated for 800Mbps NAT throughput does 802.1p, and has 4 QoS queues. It's what you need. Your problem has been you're buying expensive consumer devices that are expensive because they look nice and are built for end-user ease of use. You need something designed and rated for that level of throughput.
 
Last edited:
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
QoS is never a solution for bandwidth issues.

What do you have running at the endpoint that needs it?

QoS is not going to fix what's upstream.
 
B

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Enigma102083 said:
It's rated for 800Mbps NAT throughput does 802.1p, and has 4 QoS queues. It's what you need. Your problem has been you're buying expensive consumer devices that are expensive because they look nice and are built for end-user ease of use. You need something designed and rated for that level of throughput.
Click to expand...

Based on the manual for it, the QoS only works on outbound traffic, there doesnt seem to be any way to limit inbound traffic.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
BD2003 said:
Based on the manual for it, the QoS only works on outbound traffic, there doesnt seem to be any way to limit inbound traffic.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, that's what 'most' (all ?) QOS do. Tomato's QOS limits outbound, which in turn limits what comes back (since there has to be a handshaking between out and in). I don't know of any QOS that turns away incoming packets (but I could be wrong).

Toastman, at the Linksysinfo.org forums, has a huge QOS thread in which he explains how the QOS works and that is where that is where that I read about outbound being the secret (i.e. - it's the only that that your router actually has control over).

I know that dual core routers based on Broadcom and other chips are becoming available now. There is work by Victek and others to port Tomato over to these. Not sure of the status though. I know that the Asus RT-N66 router is probably as close to getting 100mbps with QOS (with Tomato) on as any other right now. I also know it's a hot topic in the Tomato forums, since so many around the world are now getting 100+ mbps connections, and that there are people working on it.
 
Last edited:
B

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
The way the tomato qos works on downstream is that it just drops the packets once it hits the limit. From there TCP takes over and the server starts slowing down what it's sending.

Seems simple enough, can't imagine how that's so computationally expensive. It's not like steam grinds your computer to a halt if you set it to download at a max of 50mbps. I'm thinking it's the prioritization that hits the CPU so hard, but I've yet to find any solution that just simply lets me set overall limits.
 
Z

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
edgerouter is pretty sweet

a pfsense box or vyatta box(what edge router runs on) would work too

its cheap IF you have random hardware laying around
 
B

ButtMagician

Member
Jun 24, 2012
33
1
71
gamepreorders.com
My humble apologies for bumping this old post. I'm in a very similar situation as OP right now - upgraded my connection to 100mbps, and my current router can't handle it.

I have an old, mildly overclocked WRT54GL w/ the original Tomato firmware, and it manages to pull 40mbps according to SpeedTest.net, with some basic QoS (just ports, no complex L7 rules). I'm surprised to hear that Asus RT-AC66U, which is three times faster by clock rate alone, would struggle with 100mbps. Maybe all those new Tomato derivatives are just poorly optimized?

Personally, I'm trying a Mikrotik router right now. It cost me ~36 euro, several times less than the price of RT-AC66U and other high-end consumer routers. It is also well-capable of handling 100mbps connections. Probably even with QoS. It is configuring it which is the problem.

These are my QoS rules in Tomato - so simple a child would understand them:
http://i.imgur.com/gAuK6FC.jpg

This is how you do QoS in Mikrotik's RouterOS, apparently:
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/NetworkPro_on_Quality_of_Service#Example_QoS_script_v0.1_alpha

Mangle, shmangle, and command lines... I think I'll end up returning this beast, it is clearly meant for network technicians.

pfSense is too pricy because I want a small, fanless box, and such systems cost a lot.

Really, a more powerful Tomato box would be perfect. But OP's results are very discouraging :(
 
X

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
ButtMagician said:
pfSense is too pricy because I want a small, fanless box, and such systems cost a lot.
Click to expand...

You have to pay to play. You want high level features/performance, you're going to pay for it. That said, $220 for a retail system, $260 for build your own. That's not much more expensive than high end consumer routers.

Intel Atom ITX PC - $210

Or I did a quick build off Newegg.

Gigabyte GA-Z97N (for the Dual NIC's), Celeron G1840, 2Gb Gskill RAM, $50 for an ITX case. $260.

Add $20 to either for a USB thumb drive to boot from. If that doesn't work for you can get a Cisco 3825 for $100 used off eBay. But have fun learning how to set it up.
 
B

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
alkemyst said:
Why are so many doing QoS on solo used devices? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Even if you live alone nothing is really solo use anymore. You've got streaming media, downloads, browsing, gaming etc all competing for bandwidth. When steam or a console or whatever decides to randomly start downloading a patch, that could be a few GB of activity that you didn't even initiate. Even on my 100mbps connection I can tell if my wife starts a Netflix stream while I'm gaming or using FaceTime, I'll start to get lots of random lag spikes, because even if it's just a 10mbps stream it doesn't come in at a steady pace. It buffers for a few seconds up front then periodically saturates the connection every minute or so to fill it back up. Even when I'm just web browsing it's still noticeably faster with QoS because I can prioritize the TCP control packets and keep latency to a minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom