Network Optimization: WiFi Analyzer for best channel range

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
I'm trying to get the best wifi range in my home and am using WiFi Analyzer on my Android device.

I'm literally sitting next to my Netgear R7000 and the range according to the app is apparently at 2 stars using channel 11 (which is 11+7 according to WiFi analyzer. What does the +7 mean? I realize it's probably channel 7; how does that work?)

My wifi isn't bad at home, but I still want to optimize my channels especially as I need to ensure the maximum coverage bearing in mind I'm adding some additional outdoor WiFi-powered items (cameras). The best range is paramount to me. I need to get somewhat near the 10 star range, but I don't understand why it would not show 10 stars when sitting RIGHT next to it. Note, the DBM is -30 so it appears that signal strength is good.

I should note that I have Lumas (getluma.com) all throughout my home with the same SSID, and WiFi Analyzer picks each up individually. Luma doesn't allow users to set the channels. Regardless, the situation is similar. I get very bad range as far as WiFi Analyzer tells me, only a half a star this time for those when standing right next to them.

Why would I get such a bad star rating 3 feet away from the darn routers or extenders? How do I make sure I'm on the optimal channel? I'll probably need some additional TP Link adapters (my house is made of brick so there's another challenge in itself) to extend the range, but I'm looking for thoughts and recommendations on all of the above.
 
razel

razel

Platinum Member
May 14, 2002
2,337
90
101
I assume that stars rating is telling you which one to choose, but I have a feeling you have to tell it which one is your WiFi so that it can ignore it. Best result is done by turning off your WiFi. However I would just ignore that completely because of Luma setup. If 'best range is paramount' to you, then hopefully you can wire up your Lumas so that they use a wired backbone. If they support it.
 
M

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,500
145
106
The "Wifi Analyzer" that I have, has "Channel Rating" view that lists each Channel Number, up to 11 stars, and "Access Point Count". The less access points are heard on a channel, the better it is.

If you do switch to "Channel Graph" view, each access point should be shown as a peak centered on its channel. The height of a peak tells how strong the signal is. If you are next to your AP, its peak should be tall, taller than other AP's.
 
PliotronX

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
SNR looks great so I would not worry. The +7 denotes the secondary channel used for 40MHz (bonded 20MHz). Often times in crowded air, I have found better signal strength and more reliable throughput dropping it to 20MHz.
 
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
@razel: Not sure I understand what you're saying, but the Luma hub is on a wired backbone. So are some of the Lumas in my home.

@mv2devnull: Yes, the peaks are there. I'm just wondering if I'm creating my own interference since I'll probably need to buy a number of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0195Y0A42/ - think those will work?

@PilotronX: Possibly the SNR is great, but the individual extenders might interfere with the main connection. I see a lot of little peaks via the Channel Graph on WiFi Analyzer that indicate the other extenders throughout the home. I have some very weak areas since the home is brick (hence me wanting to buy those TP Links as shared by the link in the previous comment to mv2devnull) so I'm always concerned. The WiFi setup here hasn't always been reliable. I was a network engineer many moons ago, and I still know enough about what a good WiFi setup looks like, but I never expected to do it in a 110 year old home that has a lot of walls that prevent things from operating optimally!
 
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
Was waiting for you to chime in, Jack :)

Wish they could bundle all 4 of those in a single app, but I'll give those a shot and see what my Surface Book shows as I walk around the house. Thanks!
 
X

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
@tami I want to make sure I'm understanding your setup because it doesn't seem to make sense to me. A simple drawing of your setup would help too or at least a more detail description of what your wireless setup is trying to cover (IE how big is the house, how far away is the outdoor stuff, etc).

You have a Netgear R7000 (I'm assuming your primary router) with WiFi turned on. You have a Luma Mesh WiFi setup with an ethernet backhaul, presumably to the R7000. Then you've now purchased some TPLink WiFi extenders. If all that is accurate, that's a problematic setup and probably your issue.

The main point of Mesh devices (your Luma's) is for seemless handoff between AP's so that your client devices are connected to the best AP at all times. However, you have non-mesh devices in the mix. Using the same SSID prevents you from manually switching networks, but you lose the intelligent handoff. Meaning even though you were standing next to the R7000, your client device may still have been connected to one of the Luma's as the signal from them isn't low enough to drop the connection. Adding extenders can actually make matters worse because you could be causing signal overlap. The ideal setup would be to lose the extenders and turn off the WiFi on the R7000 then get more Luma's to fill any gaps.

JackMDS said:
When I want to really Analyze WIFI I use real Tools.

I.e., Laptop with Good WIFI and these free portable Apps.

https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_network_view.html

https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_network_watcher.html

https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html

https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_channel_monitor.html


:cool:
Click to expand...

Do you have some technical info leading you to believe these pieces of software are superior to the software the OP was using?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aigomorla and tami
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
@XavierMace thank you. You are right, I should probably explain my setup a little better. I can't really draw so well and it would totally suck, but let's start with this potential visual:

My modem is on the main floor in my office. Connected to that modem is my Netgear N7000. My router connects to a switch where I have a number of wired interfaces connected throughout my home (but mostly just a second door closet). The switch is the home of my Luma hub.

Yes, in addition, I have those non-mesh TP-Links. The reason for this is because I live in a brick home and the Lumas are a complete mess here. I already have 5 Lumas and I could move an inch away and lose connectivity completely. The TP-Links were there to prevent this kind of thing. If not, bearing in mind I have a 110 year old brick house, I'd probably have to get a Luma for one corner and then another Luma right around the corner (literally. I did troubleshooting with the company when I bought them and it was amazing how you could have a working Luma in one room and then turn the corner and lose everything entirely). Having that "wired non-mesh" whatever setup you may call it sort of mitigated that. In fact, it's the only reason why some of my Lumas work (they plug in directly to the TP-Links).

Let me try to illustrate a bit:

So the office is in the front of the house in the center on the first floor. Downstairs from this is my main switch setup; I have the Luma hub (Luma #1) connected to it as well as the main TP-Link device.

Right above that, almost 15 feet to a diagonal (from my basement, so we're considering a floor between the two) and 20-25 feet away from the office on the 1st floor is my kitchen. In there is a TP Link and a Luma (Luma #2) that's connected via Ethernet to the TP-Link (prior to any type of Luma setup, WiFi would immediately drop to -80 DBM; there was significant interference likely from the house construction). The Luma itself, too, could not catch onto the office connection alone, so the TP-Link assisted with the connectivity.

To the opposite side of my house, more directly to the front right (another 20 feet or so away) is another TP-Link with an Ethernet connection to my Luma (Luma #3). Same setup as the kitchen.

I do have a second floor, and there, I have a Luma (Luma #4) in my laundry room (exact center of my house, you'd call it). It is plugged in directly to the wall; it works independently of any TP-Link adapter.

However, when you make a left and turn to a room to the left, again, construction interferes. Literally 2 feet away, I lose my standlone WiFi connection, so I needed the TP-Links to boost that connection. Again, it's like the previous two; the Ethernet cable plugs into the TP-Link to connect to my Luma (Luma #5).

If I don't have my TP-Link setup, my Luma doesn't work either. It's just the way the house is built.

I mentioned that I had wired Ethernet go to my closet. I actually have another router set up there that I could use. It's an ASUS RT-N66U, so it's a powerful router. It has the same SSID as the others.

But I should note another thing: the network IPs.

My main router has an IP of 10.10.10.1.
My Lumas aren't configurable, so they operate on the 192.168.1.x subnet.
My Asus is configured to work on 10.10.11.1.

I realize that the IP address handoff could also be an issue. Perhaps that's the biggest problem. I'm not sure. I wish I could operate all seamlessly on a 10.10.10.x subnet but Luma hasn't gotten around to perfecting their software for users who don't opt into their subscription service, despite this being a longtime request (as well as port forwarding...)

Yes, this sound like a mess, so I'd love to know how to best work around this. I'd avoid this kind of redundancy normally, but the home doesn't seem to serve my needs so well to get a strong wireless connection.

Also - my wireless outdoors is very weak, so I'm considering more TP-Link connections (with or without Lumas; I tried one and again had concrete interference) closer to the areas where the cameras will be installed to ensure that the wireless connections are seamless. That's mostly why I'm here; I need a strong signal to hit four corners of my home for four cameras. Right now, they just don't extend that far, and it's due to the walls in the way, not due to my network setup.
 
JackMDS

JackMDS

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 25, 1999
29,472
387
126
XavierMace said:


@JackMDS. Do you have some technical info leading you to believe these pieces of software are superior to the software the OP was using?
Click to expand...

Lamborghini is a great car fast beautiful and cost more than 200,000. Yet no matter what you can Not use it as a Bus. Everything around us have some limitation under some circumstances.

Wireless Phones have Power and size limitation. While these limitation does not effect there capacity to summon Uber it does Limit their WIFI Technical capacity.

http://pocketnow.com/2013/06/28/smartphone-wifi-performance


:cool:
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,545
236
106
First off, are you saying the internal walls are brick, or that the house has outer walls of brick? If internal, are we talking every wall or just certain ones?
Also, you can change the range to Nighthawk's DHCP server (and the router itself) to whatever range you want (10, 172, or 192), so I am not sure why you aren't just changing it to match those of the Lumas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tami
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
@Ketchup Some of the internal ones are brick, but regardless, the construction of this house DOES cause interference. Some walls are so bad that as I said, you turn the corner and the connection drops even though it's no more than 3 feet away (directly behind the other Luma which is behind a wall. Think a hallway with a wall that is like this | - one side has a working Luma and the other doesn't immediately behind it, two steps away. It's kind of insane).

I know I could change over to 192.168.1.x. I'm just not a fan of using the 192.68.x.x subnet. The default on the router (and Tomato, which I'm using) is 192.168.x.1, I just chose to go to 10.10.10.x. Is that a significant issue? I've had this setup for longer than I have had the Lumas, and I'd like to not have to make changes since I have a lot of computers/servers running at certain static IPs.
 
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
@Ketchup ha, maybe. But I can tell you this -- pretty sure my setup has a lot of room for improvement. I hope those TP-Links provide some solace to the areas that have crappy coverage, but I'm still not confident this is the right way to go. All I know is that it's worked so far.
 
X

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
@tami Thanks for the more detailed run down. My first question is, can you take the whole network down without issue? Before we even start with the networking side of it, let's start with the physical stuff and start at the first device in the chain. Ignore the "star" rating on the app. The extent of "optimal" channel is picking the channel with the least congestion in your area. The spectrum you're using is a bit of a different story. If you're having this much signal issue in the house, I'd assume you're getting little or no signal from other people's WiFi, is that correct? First thing I would do is turn everything off save for the primary router and start re-testing from scratch.

Regarding the spectrum. 5Ghz is great for max speed but only in the best of circumstances. 2.4Ghz is much better at punching through walls and other interference. It's not magic, it still has limitations, but it may be worth disabling your 5Ghz networks and see if you get an overall more stable signal. Also keep in mind many access points aren't omni-directional antenna's. So if your Luma's are designed to sit flat and you have them wall mounted, that's not going to be helping either. We also need to clarify if you're having signal issues or connectivity issues. Or both. More on that below.

The IP addressing isn't helping you either but from your last description, it appears you're just wasting the Luma's right now as all but one is in the same room as a TP-Link extender anyways? Unless your house is built with signal reflecting walls or is mansion sized, there's zero reason why you should need a range extender and an AP in the same room even if it's 110 year old brick room. It sounds to me the you'd be better off just dumping the Luma's entirely. I really would also reconsider your IP address setup. Your devices are effectively connecting to 3 different networks depending on which access point they connect to. This is again the exact opposite of what a mesh network is for. Lets say you connect to your primary router first. Your phone pulls a DHCP address from it with a lease of 24 hours. You then walk to the other side of the house and connect to one of the Luma's. Your phone thinks it's still on the same wireless network but it's IP address and gateway is no longer valid on the access point it's connected to. Most devices don't handle that sort of change terribly gracefully. Generally you'll see you have good signal, it will say it's still connected to WiFi, but you won't have any connectivity.

JackMDS said:
Lamborghini is a great car fast beautiful and cost more than 200,000. Yet no matter what you can Not use it as a Bus. Everything around us have some limitation under some circumstances.

Wireless Phones have Power and size limitation. While these limitation does not effect there capacity to summon Uber it does Limit their WIFI Technical capacity.

http://pocketnow.com/2013/06/28/smartphone-wifi-performance


:cool:
Click to expand...

That was a horrible metaphor. Regarding the article itself, that's 5 years old, and riddled with assumptions and inaccurate information. It's also irrelevant to the OP's question.

Regarding the general premise of using a laptop to test instead of a phone, that doesn't explain what you think he'd be gaining by downloading the tools on a laptop and using a laptop instead. Let's assume for a moment that the wifi in his laptop is better than in his phone (and that's 100% an assumption these days). He walks around the house with your tools and find nothing wrong. That accomplishes nothing because the device he was testing with isn't the device that was having issues in the first place. If the goal is to have adequate wifi coverage for all devices in the house, then switching to a device (potentially) less prone to having issues accomplishes nothing.

If we want to stick with the car metaphors, he asked how he can improve the range of his Lamborghini. Your response was a Lamborghini isn't a real car, use a different vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tami and PliotronX
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
@XavierMace You're probably right. I should try everything without the Lumas and see if they make an impact. But yes, the house is "big" but not mansion-sized. I'd say probably 4000sq ft of workable/Internet, but then you get another 2000+ or so with my unfinished basement where all the switch activity and where the main TP-Link is.

Let me try without Lumas and see if that helps. Then I'll reintroduce the Lumas into the mix if the issue is not solved. It's good to have the TP-Links since they stay on the 10.10.10.x network, but then you get that issue you described.

Also, I prefer 2.4 GHz, so I'm fine with disabling the 5 GHz network. It's not so stable itself (though yes, a bit faster) anyway.
 
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
LOL so I opened up a ticket with Luma, and I asked about switching to a 10.10.10.x network. This guy who clearly is from level 1 tech support responds with:
"The Luma does set IP addresses specific to its network.
This is to maintain network security.
The Luma will unfortunately not compromise this feature."

hah, how is 192.168.1.x more secure than the manually-changed 10.10.10.x? :)
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,545
236
106
That just means "I don't know how to change it." But if it's running it's own little DHCP server, isn't there a way to access it? Forgive me, as I have only done a little bit of looking into these things.
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,545
236
106
Well, take it one step at a time: see how the setup works without the Lumas and we'll go from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tami
T

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
Thanks, will do. I'm awaiting shipment of the 4 TP-Links I bought yesterday, so with Prime, they should be in tomorrow.
 
Ketchup

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,545
236
106
Honestly, it sounds like if you have existing network at all, they don't work "properly," or at least that's how they designed it to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom