Need a wireless router for heavy torrenting

[mrred]

I know that different routers have different processors in them, so I'm wondering if someone can recommend a router that will handle 3 people using torrents (multiple torrents at a time) without crapping out. I would prefer an inexpensive model (sub-$100) if possible.
My current Dlink DI-624 doesn't run very well with just ONE client running torrents (wired connection), and now I have 2 roommates who want to connect wirelessly and they will definitely be torrenting as well. I'm throttling the UL/DL appropriately.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: mrred
I know that different routers have different processors in them, so I'm wondering if someone can recommend a router that will handle 3 people using torrents (multiple torrents at a time) without crapping out. I would prefer an inexpensive model (sub-$100) if possible.
My current Dlink DI-624 doesn't run very well with just ONE client running torrents (wired connection), and now I have 2 roommates who want to connect wirelessly and they will definitely be torrenting as well. I'm throttling the UL/DL appropriately.

I wouldn't guarantee that any consumer-grade routers will handle 3 people torrenting excessively. I've seen just about every given manufacturer's equipment keel over when they start running past 10k states, either given to memory problems or just raw packet-per-second overload (my personal favorite).

You might consider an open-source firewall alternative combined with an access-point and/or switch, depending on your level of networking expertise.

 

[mrred]

Unfortunately I have no experience with your suggestion of an open-source firewall and I think it would take too long for me to figure it all out and set it up. Are all consumer-grade routers using similar equipment? Like... will it really not make a difference which one I choose unless I'm getting one that's $150+?

 

[KenAF2]

How fast is your connection? If you've got a 100Mbps connection and you want to let each person p2p with 800 simultaneous connections, you're going to be hard pressed to find a router that can do that while maintaining high throughput and responsiveness.

On the other hand, if you have a 10-15Mbps connection and you want three people to torrent with 150-200 connections each, then plenty of routers can handle that.

 

[mrred]

It's DSL 3Mb/640Kb... will be up to 6Mb/1Mb soon
I thought the # of connections is more important than the total bandwidth but maybe I'm wrong.

3 people with 150-200 connections sounds about right.

 

[p0lar]

Originally posted by: KenAF2
How fast is your connection? If you've got a 100Mbps connection and you want to let each person p2p with 800 simultaneous connections, you're going to be hard pressed to find a router that can do that while maintaining high throughput and responsiveness.

On the other hand, if you have a 10-15Mbps connection and you want three people to torrent with 150-200 connections each, then plenty of routers can handle that.

It really isn't so much the speed of the link as it is the number of stateful connections maintained and packet per second load. A popular torrent might have several thousand connections.

OP: In this case, your best bet is to limit your connections on a social, per-housemate basis. If you see things starting to slow down, hop on your sneaker-net and go crack some heads -- everyone understands that kind of network tech. 😉

 

[mrred]

OK thanks, gotcha.

Thing is, I still want to get a new router because my old one isn't cutting it, and I don't want to make a poor decision. Do all consumer-grade routers basically have the same capabilities when it comes to dealing with hundreds/thousands of connections??

 

[KenAF2]

Originally posted by: mrred
It's DSL 3Mb/640Kb... will be up to 6Mb/1Mb soon
I thought the # of connections is more important than the total bandwidth but maybe I'm wrong.

3 people with 150-200 connections sounds about right.

Since you have just 10Mbps downstream to work with, any router supporting DD-WRT with at least 16Mb memory should do just fine. Since it sounds like most people will be using 802.11g, I would order the Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 for $59 shipped from Newegg, but you would need to install the latest version of DD-WRT. The next step up from that would be the D-Link DIR-655 (with stock 1.03 firmware) for $99 from Frys.com, but you wouldn't gain anything from it with a 10Mbps connection, aside from somewhat improved QoS.

 

[mrred]

Thx for the help KenAF2. I did a little reading about DD-WRT and I think I'll get a Linksys WRT54GL since I can get it for $65CAN (can't find that buffalo one in a local store)

It has 16MB cache and supports DD-WRT. Before I make the purchase, does anyone know if I'm making a HORRIBLE choice here?

 

[KenAF2]

Originally posted by: mrred
Thx for the help KenAF2. I did a little reading about DD-WRT and I think I'll get a Linksys WRT54GL since I can get it for $65CAN (can't find that buffalo one in a local store)

It has 16MB cache and supports DD-WRT. Before I make the purchase, does anyone know if I'm making a HORRIBLE choice here?

You indicated the intention to use wireless. The Buffalo has better wireless range. Otherwise, performance is comparable / identical.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: mrred
Thx for the help KenAF2. I did a little reading about DD-WRT and I think I'll get a Linksys WRT54GL since I can get it for $65CAN (can't find that buffalo one in a local store)

It has 16MB cache and supports DD-WRT. Before I make the purchase, does anyone know if I'm making a HORRIBLE choice here?

This is exactly what I'm using, and it works great. I max out my connection all the time doing torrents, and it never slows down. The first thing to do when you flash with DD-WRT though is to open up the max number of IP connections to 4096 or whatever the max is. I think that by default, it is at 512.