Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sat May 09, 2020 2:50 am

Dear Community!

I have bought a RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN router.
I was able to set up everything - got a little help in the forum here - everything working perfectly, except WLAN.
I can get maxed out rates (the max I get from my ISP) on ether interfaces, but not on Wi-Fi. I hope that I could get at least around 400Mbps on Wi-Fi with this router.

Tried different configs, I couldn't get better rates than 190Mbps on 5GHz and 40Mbps on 2.4GHz.
Mostly I'm interested in 5GHz performance... 2.4GHz is too crowded here (5GHz not).
My much cheaper router produced slightly better rates than this. So I assume this must be a config error (or maybe the 5GHz problem on RB4011 is still there?)

Hope someone can give me some advice on what might be configured wrongly, or what I could try out to improve the performace.

My current config:
# may/09/2020 01:49:00 by RouterOS 6.46.6
# software id = CK9Q-MRSJ
#
# model = RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD
# serial number = D1460B1C119B
/interface bridge
add name=vlan_bridge protocol-mode=none vlan-filtering=yes
/interface vlan
add interface=vlan_bridge name=vlan_base vlan-id=99
add interface=vlan_bridge name=vlan_guest vlan-id=20
add interface=vlan_bridge name=vlan_private vlan-id=10
/interface ethernet switch port
set 0 default-vlan-id=0
set 1 default-vlan-id=0
set 2 default-vlan-id=0
set 3 default-vlan-id=0
set 4 default-vlan-id=0
set 5 default-vlan-id=0
set 6 default-vlan-id=0
set 7 default-vlan-id=0
set 8 default-vlan-id=0
set 9 default-vlan-id=0
set 10 default-vlan-id=0
set 11 default-vlan-id=0
/interface list
add comment=defconf name=WAN
add comment=defconf name=LAN
add name=VLAN
add name=BASE
/interface wireless security-profiles
set [ find default=yes ] authentication-types=wpa2-psk comment="Guest Profile" eap-methods="" mode=\
    dynamic-keys supplicant-identity=MikroTik
add authentication-types=wpa2-psk eap-methods="" group-key-update=1h management-protection=allowed mode=\
    dynamic-keys name=profile_private supplicant-identity=""
/interface wireless
set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] band=5ghz-n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX country=hungary disabled=no \
    installation=indoor mode=ap-bridge name=wlan_atlas secondary-channel=auto security-profile=\
    profile_private ssid=atlas wireless-protocol=802.11 wmm-support=enabled wps-mode=disabled
add disabled=no keepalive-frames=disabled mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 master-interface=wlan_atlas \
    multicast-buffering=disabled name=wlan_atlas_guest ssid=atlas-Guest wds-cost-range=0 \
    wds-default-cost=0 wps-mode=disabled
set [ find default-name=wlan2 ] band=2ghz-b/g/n channel-width=20/40mhz-XX country=no_country_set \
    disabled=no distance=indoors frequency=auto installation=indoor mode=ap-bridge name=wlan_fujijama \
    security-profile=profile_private ssid=fujijama wireless-protocol=802.11
add disabled=no keepalive-frames=disabled mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA master-interface=wlan_fujijama \
    multicast-buffering=disabled name=wlan_fujijama_guest ssid=fujijama-Guest wds-cost-range=0 \
    wds-default-cost=0 wps-mode=disabled
/ip kid-control
add name="Children control"
/ip pool
add name=dhcp_pool_private ranges=10.0.0.50-10.0.0.254
add name=dhcp_pool_guest ranges=10.0.3.2-10.0.3.254
add name=dhcp_pool_base ranges=10.0.99.2-10.0.99.254
/ip dhcp-server
add address-pool=dhcp_pool_private disabled=no interface=vlan_private lease-time=1d name=dhcp_private
add address-pool=dhcp_pool_guest disabled=no interface=vlan_guest lease-time=1h name=dhcp_guest
add address-pool=dhcp_pool_base disabled=no interface=vlan_base lease-time=1h name=dhcp_base
/ppp profile
add bridge=vlan_bridge local-address=10.0.0.2 name=ppp_private remote-address=188.142.192.135
/queue simple
add max-limit=2M/90M name="Limit Guest VLAN" target=vlan_guest
/interface bridge port
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether2 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge interface=sfp-sfpplus1
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether3 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether4 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether5 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether6 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether7 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether8 pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether9 pvid=20
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=wlan_atlas pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=wlan_fujijama pvid=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=wlan_fujijama_guest pvid=20
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=wlan_atlas_guest pvid=20
add bridge=vlan_bridge frame-types=admit-only-untagged-and-priority-tagged ingress-filtering=yes \
    interface=ether10 pvid=99
/ip neighbor discovery-settings
set discover-interface-list=VLAN
/interface bridge vlan
add bridge=vlan_bridge tagged=vlan_bridge untagged=\
    ether2,ether3,ether4,ether5,ether6,ether7,ether8,wlan_atlas,wlan_fujijama vlan-ids=10
add bridge=vlan_bridge tagged=vlan_bridge untagged=ether9,wlan_fujijama_guest,wlan_atlas_guest vlan-ids=\
    20
add bridge=vlan_bridge tagged=vlan_bridge untagged=ether10 vlan-ids=99
/interface detect-internet
set detect-interface-list=all
/interface l2tp-server server
set authentication=mschap1,mschap2 default-profile=ppp_private
/interface list member
add interface=ether1 list=WAN
add interface=vlan_base list=VLAN
add interface=vlan_private list=VLAN
add interface=vlan_guest list=VLAN
add interface=vlan_base list=BASE
add interface=vlan_private list=BASE
/interface ovpn-server server
set auth=sha1 certificate=server cipher=aes256 enabled=yes require-client-certificate=yes
/interface wireless access-list
add comment=COMP1 interface=wlan_atlas mac-address=08:62:66:BC:8C:BF
/ip address
add address=10.0.99.1/24 interface=vlan_base network=10.0.99.0
add address=10.0.0.2/24 interface=vlan_private network=10.0.0.0
add address=10.0.3.2/24 interface=vlan_guest network=10.0.3.0
/ip cloud
set ddns-enabled=yes
/ip dhcp-client
add comment=defconf disabled=no interface=ether1
/ip dhcp-server lease
add address=10.0.0.99 mac-address=78:11:DC:55:9E:00 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.100 client-id=1:0:4:20:f0:af:64 mac-address=00:04:20:F0:AF:64 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.195 mac-address=EC:FA:BC:12:83:9F server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.85 mac-address=DC:4F:22:C0:7A:BB server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.84 mac-address=DC:4F:22:C0:74:57 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.83 mac-address=DC:4F:22:C0:73:5B server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.131 client-id=1:8:62:66:bc:8c:bf mac-address=08:62:66:BC:8C:BF server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.59 mac-address=EC:FA:BC:86:CD:DD server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.135 client-id=1:dc:a6:32:d:4b:73 mac-address=DC:A6:32:0D:4B:73 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.93 mac-address=78:11:DC:EB:54:08 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.101 mac-address=40:31:3C:D0:D9:30 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.105 mac-address=98:F4:AB:B8:64:0F server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.110 mac-address=98:F4:AB:B8:6D:01 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.112 mac-address=C8:2B:96:10:AB:53 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.109 mac-address=04:CF:8C:15:BD:5E server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.120 mac-address=C8:2B:96:11:4F:B4 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.87 mac-address=E4:F0:42:20:42:53 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.103 mac-address=04:CF:8C:25:61:92 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.138 mac-address=98:F4:AB:F3:43:E2 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.175 mac-address=EC:FA:BC:14:83:26 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.86 mac-address=DC:4F:22:C0:75:0A server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.111 mac-address=C8:2B:96:10:AF:4F server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.98 mac-address=34:CE:00:FB:DB:F3 server=dhcp_private
add address=10.0.0.53 client-id=1:50:13:95:bf:f7:dc comment=Yi-Hack mac-address=50:13:95:BF:F7:DC server=\
    dhcp_private
/ip dhcp-server network
add address=10.0.0.0/24 dns-server=10.0.0.3 gateway=10.0.0.2
add address=10.0.3.0/24 dns-server=10.0.0.3 gateway=10.0.3.2
add address=10.0.99.0/24 dns-server=8.8.8.8 gateway=10.0.99.1
/ip dns
set allow-remote-requests=yes servers=9.9.9.9
/ip dns static
add address=192.168.88.1 comment=defconf name=router.lan
/ip firewall filter
add action=accept chain=input comment="Allow Estab & Related" connection-state=established,related
add action=accept chain=input comment="Allow VLAN_HOME Full Access" in-interface-list=BASE
add action=drop chain=input comment=Drop connection-state=""
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Allow Estab & Related" connection-state=established,related
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Access Pi-hole DNS from VLANs UDP" dst-address=10.0.0.3 \
    dst-port=53 in-interface-list=VLAN protocol=udp
add action=accept chain=forward comment="Access Pi-hole DNS from VLANs TCP" dst-address=10.0.0.3 \
    dst-port=53 in-interface-list=VLAN protocol=tcp
add action=accept chain=forward comment="VLAN Internet Access only" connection-state=new \
    in-interface-list=VLAN out-interface-list=WAN
add action=drop chain=forward comment=Drop connection-state=""
/ip firewall nat
add action=masquerade chain=srcnat comment=masquerade ipsec-policy=out,none out-interface-list=WAN
add action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment=NAS dst-port=22 in-interface=ether1 protocol=tcp to-addresses=\
    10.0.0.252 to-ports=18022
add action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment="Transmission Web Interface" dst-port=19091 in-interface=ether1 \
    protocol=tcp to-addresses=10.0.0.252 to-ports=9091
add action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment=Transmission dst-port=49850 in-interface=ether1 protocol=tcp \
    to-addresses=10.0.0.252 to-ports=49850
add action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment=HTTPS dst-port=61443 in-interface=ether1 protocol=tcp \
    to-addresses=10.0.0.252 to-ports=443
/ip ipsec policy
set 0 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 src-address=0.0.0.0/0
/ppp secret
add local-address=10.0.0.2 name=kristof profile=ppp_private remote-address=10.0.0.10 service=ovpn
/system clock
set time-zone-name=Europe/Budapest
/system leds
set 0 type=on
add interface=wlan_fujijama leds="wlan_fujijama_signal1-led,wlan_fujijama_signal2-led,wlan_fujijama_signal\
    3-led,wlan_fujijama_signal4-led,wlan_fujijama_signal5-led" type=wireless-signal-strength
add interface=wlan_fujijama leds=wlan_fujijama_tx-led type=interface-transmit
add interface=wlan_fujijama leds=wlan_fujijama_rx-led type=interface-receive
/system ntp client
set enabled=yes server-dns-names=0.hu.pool.ntp.org,1.hu.pool.ntp.org
/tool graphing interface
add allow-address=10.0.0.0/24
/tool graphing resource
add allow-address=10.0.0.0/24
add allow-address=10.0.99.0/24
/tool mac-server
set allowed-interface-list=BASE
/tool mac-server mac-winbox
set allowed-interface-list=BASE

Last edited by rkrisi on Sun May 10, 2020 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 6:20 pm

Mikrotik fannboys are going to slander me, but trust me, You have two options:

1) Return/sell Mikrotik and buy some other, less configurable, but better working wifi router.
2) Disable wireless and buy some other, less configurable, but better working wifi accesspoint and connect it to Mikrotik router.
 
heidarren
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:56 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 6:30 pm

Mikrotik fannboys are going to slander me, but trust me, You have two options:

1) Return/sell Mikrotik and buy some other, less configurable, but better working wifi router.
2) Disable wireless and buy some other, less configurable, but better working wifi accesspoint and connect it to Mikrotik router.
+1

1) You buy any other vendor's wireless product, then you study and learned some extra tuning skill, you get even better result
2) You buy MT wireless product, then you study and learned those knowledge to understand why does it perform so bad, you start to accept it and think it's normal to have this kinda performance

Make your choice
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 6:36 pm

Okay thanks!

This router was pretty expensive and I hoped that I could get a decent speed with Wi-Fi.
I saw here that lots of people have problems with it, but I never thought this is that common. In general I love MT products and its configurability (though I never had any Wi-Fi device before).

What I can't understand: If I set Frequency to auto, it will choose a frequency which is really-really crowded. The channels above 100 are empty completely... I have found a frequency which is empty and it gives a little bit better speeds for me, however still far from what I wanted.

Hope someone from MT can comment on this.
Anyway how I can activate the intial configuration support? This router has a Level5 license which means I have 30 days of support, though I haven't found anything yet.
Maybe someone from MT can have some ideas what might be wrong.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 6:42 pm



1) You buy any other vendor's wireless product, then you study and learned some extra tuning skill, you get even better result
2) You buy MT wireless product, then you study and learned those knowledge to understand why does it perform so bad, you start to accept it and think it's normal to have this kinda performance

Make your choice
100% true.

Mikrotik's wifi device owner is either too shame to admit what a big mistake he made, or after a abnormal configuration marathon is having a Stockholm syndrome.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 6:46 pm


Maybe someone from MT can have some ideas what might be wrong.
Don't be a masochist, thre is no fix. Been there, done that, read my (or use google and find thousands more) story - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=160252
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 7:12 pm


Maybe someone from MT can have some ideas what might be wrong.
Don't be a masochist, thre is no fix. Been there, done that, read my (or use google and find thousands more) story - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=160252
I have read this thread before...
I'm not really happy with this as I just bought the router... however for me, it is almost the same as my previous cheap router (in terms of speed), but the distance and stability is much better...

Also how could I set the secondary channel? It seems that any value I give, it will not accept, only auto.
 
andriys
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 8:33 pm

What's your client device? It is possible that the speed is limited by the capabilities of your client, not the AP.
Can you show what's in the registration table (/interface wireless registration-table print stats) during the test?
 
whatever
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:29 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 10:08 pm

Hey, at least the 5 GHz interface is stable now, it used to be crashing regularly for more than a year. Another 1-2 years from now mikrotik wifi transfer speed might be up to what other vendors provide today.
However, 200-300 Mbps wifi speed is already pretty ok in most situations. If you really need reliably faster wifi today, you should indeed get an access point from another vendor as already suggested.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 10:20 pm


Maybe someone from MT can have some ideas what might be wrong.
Don't be a masochist, thre is no fix. Been there, done that, read my (or use google and find thousands more) story - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=160252
I have read this thread before...
I'm not really happy with this as I just bought the router... however for me, it is almost the same as my previous cheap router (in terms of speed), but the distance and stability is much better...

Also how could I set the secondary channel? It seems that any value I give, it will not accept, only auto.
What do you mean, setting the secondary channel. You already did set the bandwidth to "80 MHZ , indoor" in your configuration: So you want 80+80(secondary) bandwidth.indoor freq.

set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] band=5ghz-n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX country=hungary disabled=no \
installation=indoor


"indoor" is limiting the possibilities to indoor-frequencies and the corresponding maximum EIRP power of 20 dBm
Channel 100 (5500MHz is part of the "installation=any" frequencies, that channel cannot be used here.
There are 2 80 MHz bands indoors, and 3 80 MHz bands outdoors
5ghz-n/ac: n supports up to 40 MHz, ac up to 80 MHz. If you want 80 MHz + secondary I think selecting ac-only the better "band" setting

[admin@Mkt] > interface wireless info country-info
country: hungary
ranges: 2402-2482/b,g,gn20,gn40(20dBm)
2417-2457/g-turbo(20dBm)
5170-5250/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(23dBm)/passive,indoor
5170-5330/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(20dBm)/dfs,passive,indoor
5250-5330/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(20dBm)/dfs,passive,indoor
5490-5710/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(27dBm)/dfs,passive
5190-5310/a-turbo(20dBm)/dfs
5180-5300/a-turbo(20dBm)/dfs
5520-5680/a-turbo(27dBm)/dfs,passive
5510-5670/a-turbo(27dBm)/dfs,passive
902-927/b,g,g-turbo,gn20,gn40(30dBm)

Not much to choose from if you want 2x80 MHz width channel (36-40-44-48) and (52-56-60-64).
"Auto" frequency selecting is not to be trusted. Avoid it ! But the device had no other choice than to select the whole indoor frequency band as it was asked to find 80+80 MHz

There are more possibilities with installation =any. You are legally allowed to use outdoor frequencies indoors. But be aware of the weather radar frquencies (120,124,128), they have always a DFS initial delay of 10 minutes!

80+80 only makes sense if your client device supports this!

You have done the first step right: select freq based on possible interference.
Now do the second step. And have a good look at all the counters in the "registration" table.
Received Signal strength, strength per ch (spatial stream), SNR, p-throughput, and the used send and receive mode eg. "5500 MHZ/40 MHz/2S/SGI" because bandwidth, number of streams, guard interval will all depend on the client device as well. CCQ and the relation frames/HW frames will give the retransmits done, an indication of the signal quality and disturbance. And these counters are crucial to understand objectively how well the "AP-device wifi combination" is performing. Tuning can be done based on the "registration" values.
The maximum theoretical performance based on bandwidth/streams/ encoding quality are very well known and are part of the 802.11 standards; http://mcsindex.com/
Not using "registration" is pure guesswork.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 10:24 pm

However, 200-300 Mbps wifi speed is already pretty ok in most situations. If you really need reliably faster wifi today, you should indeed get an access point from another vendor as already suggested.
Based specs - https://mikrotik.com/product/rb4011igs_5hacq2hnd_in

Wireless 5 GHz Max data rate 1733 Mbit/s
Wireless 2.4 GHz Max data rate 300 Mbit/s

If 5Ghz is providing max 70% of 2,4Ghz speed, then this is not OK at all.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 10:59 pm

Ksuuk, open your mind.

2.4 GHz has 300 Mbps at the best conditions. 2 spatial streams, MCS7 encoding, 40 MHz bandwidth, short guard interval.. This is the interface bruto rate. The throughput possible is between 60 and 75% of this, if traffic is in 1 direction, and there is zero interference. Traffic will fall lower than half if in both directions.

5 GHz has 1733 Mbps at the best conditions: 4 spatial streams at 80 MHz (no client device has this), or 2 spatial streams at 160 MHz (which client device is that?), MCS9 encoding which is very sensitive with its 256 QAM, 50 dB+ SNR, short guard interval, and an exit interface that can cope with that speed.(> 1Gbps). No other devices allowed as it uses a very broad range in the freq spectrum. Data throughput is 60 to 75% of the interface rate in one direction, less than halve in both directions. The AP beacons are still transmitted at 6 Mbps and take a large part of the air-time.

https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html
http://www.revolutionwifi.net/revolutio ... lator.html

You can prefer to keep claiming this brand of wifi is not performing by gut feeling. You do this already 6 years I can find out. Your methodology to make it evidence based did not improve in all that time. On the contrary you desingage any time some evidence is asked for. It might prove you have been wrong.
 
heidarren
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:56 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 11:00 pm

I got an Audience which based on the same wireless chipset with RB4011, in 2x2 the max speed I got is about 470mbps, pretty good I must say, same speed with those IPQ4018/4019 based products like hAP ac2/cAP ac, and ping respond is best among all the APs I got (Aruba IAP-225/315, Ruckus R510, Ubiquiti nanoHD/UAP-AC-LR, Netgear R7800, RT-AC86U, GT-AC5300..... many many more), but the problem is, MT AP's speed is inconsistent, for example, if I run 10 times of speed test or iperf3, all those devices gave me 10 times same top speed, but MT APs gave me like 3 times 470mbps, 5 times 400mbps+-, 2 times 300-mbps, no matter how I tune, I tried all the parameters I can test in MT, spent few months to test it, because I really love the ping respond that MT offer, but no luck at all.

So my personal conclusion is if your ISP speed is 300mbps or below, MT will offer you the best ping respond and max out the speed of your ISP offer at most of the time, but if your ISP speed is greater than 300mbps, you will find some difficulties to get consistent max speed, I mean consistently get the max speed, not sometimes but all the time. In this case, better go for other vendors, there is nothing to do with config.
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun May 10, 2020 11:58 pm

@rkrisi
Be a little patient and MikroTik will improve the wireless performance in your RB4011 .... it may take another 6 months ... patience is key

My suggestion for you is to buy the Ubiquiti nanoHD access Point
Connect that to your RB4011 and you will have superb performance beyond your wildest expectations :-)

However, if you go with my suggestion, to configure the nanoHD it requires a CONTROLLER ... 2 options are available ... a software controller that you install on your windows pc [free] or you can buy a hardware controller called UC_CK.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:20 am


You can prefer to keep claiming this brand of wifi is not performing by gut feeling. You do this already 6 years I can find out. Your methodology to make it evidence based did not improve in all that time. On the contrary you desingage any time some evidence is asked for. It might prove you have been wrong.
1) BMW can run 1000 km/h using 0 L petrol, if dropped out from spaceship, but still in official specs is given the max speed what tires/road can handle and with min/max/normal petrol usage. So Mikrotik should also give not theoretical, which users never get, but common spec -s.

2) My first wifi based topic/post at all was made at 22.04.2020, so please redraw Your false accusations and apologize.

3) In my topic, based suggestions, I made several resets, several different config modes and pasted config -s also, but even if it worked for some, as I still have problems with same hardware and same config, so it's not a config issue. Also the config fine tune suggestions were contradictory and mostly just guesses.

4) How did Your message help the user problem?
Last edited by ksuuk on Mon May 11, 2020 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:28 am

but the problem is, MT AP's speed is inconsistent, for example, if I run 10 times of speed test or iperf3, all those devices gave me 10 times same top speed, but MT APs gave me like 3 times 470mbps, 5 times 400mbps+-, 2 times 300-mbps, no matter how I tune, I tried all the parameters I can test in MT, spent few months to test it, because I really love the ping respond that MT offer, but no luck at all.
I have noticed same problem, almost every speedtest run gives a different result and this happens only with Miktotik. It's like having some internal hidden quota, cache, or something else. And because of such unstable speedtest result is impossible to tune, as I can't be sure does some option make it better or worse.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:43 am


Maybe someone from MT can have some ideas what might be wrong.
Don't be a masochist, thre is no fix. Been there, done that, read my (or use google and find thousands more) story - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=160252
I have read this thread before...
I'm not really happy with this as I just bought the router... however for me, it is almost the same as my previous cheap router (in terms of speed), but the distance and stability is much better...

Also how could I set the secondary channel? It seems that any value I give, it will not accept, only auto.
What do you mean, setting the secondary channel. You already did set the bandwidth to "80 MHZ , indoor" in your configuration: So you want 80+80(secondary) bandwidth.indoor freq.

set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] band=5ghz-n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX country=hungary disabled=no \
installation=indoor


"indoor" is limiting the possibilities to indoor-frequencies and the corresponding maximum EIRP power of 20 dBm
Channel 100 (5500MHz is part of the "installation=any" frequencies, that channel cannot be used here.
There are 2 80 MHz bands indoors, and 3 80 MHz bands outdoors
5ghz-n/ac: n supports up to 40 MHz, ac up to 80 MHz. If you want 80 MHz + secondary I think selecting ac-only the better "band" setting

[admin@Mkt] > interface wireless info country-info
country: hungary
ranges: 2402-2482/b,g,gn20,gn40(20dBm)
2417-2457/g-turbo(20dBm)
5170-5250/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(23dBm)/passive,indoor
5170-5330/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(20dBm)/dfs,passive,indoor
5250-5330/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(20dBm)/dfs,passive,indoor
5490-5710/a,an20,an40,ac20,ac40,ac80,ac160,ac80+80(27dBm)/dfs,passive
5190-5310/a-turbo(20dBm)/dfs
5180-5300/a-turbo(20dBm)/dfs
5520-5680/a-turbo(27dBm)/dfs,passive
5510-5670/a-turbo(27dBm)/dfs,passive
902-927/b,g,g-turbo,gn20,gn40(30dBm)

Not much to choose from if you want 2x80 MHz width channel (36-40-44-48) and (52-56-60-64).
"Auto" frequency selecting is not to be trusted. Avoid it ! But the device had no other choice than to select the whole indoor frequency band as it was asked to find 80+80 MHz

There are more possibilities with installation =any. You are legally allowed to use outdoor frequencies indoors. But be aware of the weather radar frquencies (120,124,128), they have always a DFS initial delay of 10 minutes!

80+80 only makes sense if your client device supports this!

You have done the first step right: select freq based on possible interference.
Now do the second step. And have a good look at all the counters in the "registration" table.
Received Signal strength, strength per ch (spatial stream), SNR, p-throughput, and the used send and receive mode eg. "5500 MHZ/40 MHz/2S/SGI" because bandwidth, number of streams, guard interval will all depend on the client device as well. CCQ and the relation frames/HW frames will give the retransmits done, an indication of the signal quality and disturbance. And these counters are crucial to understand objectively how well the "AP-device wifi combination" is performing. Tuning can be done based on the "registration" values.
The maximum theoretical performance based on bandwidth/streams/ encoding quality are very well known and are part of the 802.11 standards; http://mcsindex.com/
Not using "registration" is pure guesswork.
Thanks for your detailed answer!
Looking at the registration table, which client should I look at? Or should I conclude an average performance of the current setting?
For example my phone which is quite far away from the router has:
-60dbm Signal Strength and RX rate 585Mbps Tx rate 351Mbps, but still speedtest shows around 150Mbps speed.

What conclusion can I draw from these? How could I use this informations to improve the speed?

Thanks!
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:44 am

@rkrisi
Be a little patient and MikroTik will improve the wireless performance in your RB4011 .... it may take another 6 months ... patience is key

My suggestion for you is to buy the Ubiquiti nanoHD access Point
Connect that to your RB4011 and you will have superb performance beyond your wildest expectations :-)

However, if you go with my suggestion, to configure the nanoHD it requires a CONTROLLER ... 2 options are available ... a software controller that you install on your windows pc [free] or you can buy a hardware controller called UC_CK.
I don't mind if this will just improve over time :)
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:47 am

What's your client device? It is possible that the speed is limited by the capabilities of your client, not the AP.
Can you show what's in the registration table (/interface wireless registration-table print stats) during the test?
I don't think so. I have tried different devices.
Basically my computer which has a PCIE Asus AC Wi-Fi card (Intel chipset - I don't know the exact model though, but it has external antennas), my iPhone 8, iPad, Xiaomi mobile phones, several laptops.
The best I could get was around 210Mbps.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:48 am

I got an Audience which based on the same wireless chipset with RB4011, in 2x2 the max speed I got is about 470mbps, pretty good I must say, same speed with those IPQ4018/4019 based products like hAP ac2/cAP ac, and ping respond is best among all the APs I got (Aruba IAP-225/315, Ruckus R510, Ubiquiti nanoHD/UAP-AC-LR, Netgear R7800, RT-AC86U, GT-AC5300..... many many more), but the problem is, MT AP's speed is inconsistent, for example, if I run 10 times of speed test or iperf3, all those devices gave me 10 times same top speed, but MT APs gave me like 3 times 470mbps, 5 times 400mbps+-, 2 times 300-mbps, no matter how I tune, I tried all the parameters I can test in MT, spent few months to test it, because I really love the ping respond that MT offer, but no luck at all.

So my personal conclusion is if your ISP speed is 300mbps or below, MT will offer you the best ping respond and max out the speed of your ISP offer at most of the time, but if your ISP speed is greater than 300mbps, you will find some difficulties to get consistent max speed, I mean consistently get the max speed, not sometimes but all the time. In this case, better go for other vendors, there is nothing to do with config.
How did you get these speeds, what configuration do you use?
 
andriys
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 12:58 am

Looking at the registration table, which client should I look at?
At the one you use for testing.

For example my phone which is quite far away from the router has:
-60dbm Signal Strength and RX rate 585Mbps Tx rate 351Mbps, but still speedtest shows around 150Mbps speed.
- Analyze the whole TX/RX-rate string, not just Mbps numbers. Let's have a look at this string, for example: "866.6Mbps-80MHz/2S/SGI". It means 80MHz wide channel, 2 spatial streams (chains), short guard interval, maximum theoretical data rate 866.6Mbit/s.
- Also check CCQ. This may be even more important then just checking the data rates. In ideal situation it should be close to 100%, but of course is somewhat lower in reality.
- Have a look at these values both when your client connection is idle, and while running a test. Also open the registration table in WinBox or WebFix and see how data rates and CCQ change over time while you are conducting tests.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 1:06 am

Looking at the registration table, which client should I look at?
At the one you use for testing.

For example my phone which is quite far away from the router has:
-60dbm Signal Strength and RX rate 585Mbps Tx rate 351Mbps, but still speedtest shows around 150Mbps speed.
- Analyze the whole TX/RX-rate string, not just Mbps numbers. Let's have a look at this string, for example: "866.6Mbps-80MHz/2S/SGI". It means 80MHz wide channel, 2 spatial streams (chains), short guard interval, maximum theoretical data rate 866.6Mbit/s.
- Also check CCQ. This may be even more important then just checking the data rates. In ideal situation it should be close to 100%, but of course is somewhat lower in reality.
- Have a look at these values both when your client connection is idle, and while running a test. Also open the registration table in WinBox or WebFix and see how data rates and CCQ change over time while you are conducting tests.
Thanks so for example just a quick test with my phone:

RX rate: 580Mbps -80MHz/2S - the rates changes rather quickly, but the chains are almost 2. Sometimes it drops down to 1.
TX rate: 390Mbps-80MHz/2S/SGI
CCQ: 96% - however this is really fluctuating, it can drop down to 50% really quick. If I start a speedtest it will drop down to ~30% and will come back to around 70% slowly.

Or should I try 20/40MHz only?
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 1:15 am


Thanks for your detailed answer!
Looking at the registration table, which client should I look at? Or should I conclude an average performance of the current setting?
For example my phone which is quite far away from the router has:
-60dbm Signal Strength and RX rate 585Mbps Tx rate 351Mbps, but still speedtest shows around 150Mbps speed.

What conclusion can I draw from these? How could I use this informations to improve the speed?

Thanks!
Hi ,

would love to help, but this limited amount of information is really not enough to draw any conclusion. 585 Mbps and 351 Mbps gives some indication, but don't drop the rest of the information: Number of data streams, guard type, Rx signal strength (in all antennas cho, ch1, ...), ration TX frames versus TX HW frames, idem for RX, CCQ, RSSI, SNR,

Detailed view of the registration you want to be checked (drop down button on the right gives that option) is the full list needed. Whiteout that it's again just guessing.
Actually also need the /interface wireless setting from the config (because of settings for antenna gain, basic rates, HT rates, MCS, HW protoect, etc)

Getting 60% to 75% of the interface rate as data rate is very normal if it is unidirectional. The overhead of wifi is huge! Bidirectional will be lower. This is standard 802.11 behaviour.


As I mentioned:
Received Signal strength, strength per ch (spatial stream), SNR, p-throughput, and the used send and receive mode eg. "5500 MHZ/40 MHz/2S/SGI" because bandwidth, number of streams, guard interval will all depend on the client device as well. CCQ and the relation frames/HW frames will give the retransmits done, an indication of the signal quality and disturbance. And these counters are crucial to understand objectively how well the "AP-device wifi combination" is performing. Tuning can be done based on the "registration" values.

Have to look at your previous answer , some of it is there already.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 1:22 am


Thanks for your detailed answer!
Looking at the registration table, which client should I look at? Or should I conclude an average performance of the current setting?
For example my phone which is quite far away from the router has:
-60dbm Signal Strength and RX rate 585Mbps Tx rate 351Mbps, but still speedtest shows around 150Mbps speed.

What conclusion can I draw from these? How could I use this informations to improve the speed?

Thanks!
Hi ,

would love to help, but this limited amount of information is really not enough to draw any conclusion. 585 Mbps and 351 Mbps gives some indication, but don't drop the rest of the information: Number of data streams, guard type, Rx signal strength (in all antennas cho, ch1, ...), ration TX frames versus TX HW frames, idem for RX, CCQ, RSSI, SNR,

Detailed view of the registration you want to be checked (drop down button on the right gives that option) is the full list needed. Whiteout that it's again just guessing.
Actually also need the /interface wireless setting from the config (because of settings for antenna gain, basic rates, HT rates, MCS, HW protoect, etc)

Getting 60% to 75% of the interface rate as data rate is very normal if it is unidirectional. The overhead of wifi is huge! Bidirectional will be lower. This is standard 802.11 behaviour.


As I mentioned:
Received Signal strength, strength per ch (spatial stream), SNR, p-throughput, and the used send and receive mode eg. "5500 MHZ/40 MHz/2S/SGI" because bandwidth, number of streams, guard interval will all depend on the client device as well. CCQ and the relation frames/HW frames will give the retransmits done, an indication of the signal quality and disturbance. And these counters are crucial to understand objectively how well the "AP-device wifi combination" is performing. Tuning can be done based on the "registration" values.

Have to look at your previous answer , some of it is there already.
Thank you very much! I know that some of this data is only makes sense if it is in real time, but I would happily share my config for experts to have a look at. Is the config I attached to my first post doesn't include all the config?

/interface wireless shows:
Flags: X - disabled, R - running 
 0  R ;;; Private Wi-Fi 5GHz
      name="wlan_atlas" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=QCA9984 mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas" frequency=5500 band=5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX secondary-channel=auto,0 scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 1    name="wlan_atlas_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_atlas mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes 
      default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 

 2  R name="wlan_fujijama" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:BB:5A:E3 arp=enabled interface-type=Atheros AR9300 mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama" frequency=auto band=2ghz-g/n channel-width=20/40mhz-XX secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 3    name="wlan_fujijama_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_fujijama mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes 
      default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 
Maybe there is some config which is not changed by me and should be changed... might be something trivial.
And security profiles are only using wpa2-psk aes (I read somewhere that tkip can also be a limiter in speed).
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 1:33 am

Looking at the registration table, which client should I look at?
At the one you use for testing.

For example my phone which is quite far away from the router has:
-60dbm Signal Strength and RX rate 585Mbps Tx rate 351Mbps, but still speedtest shows around 150Mbps speed.
- Analyze the whole TX/RX-rate string, not just Mbps numbers. Let's have a look at this string, for example: "866.6Mbps-80MHz/2S/SGI". It means 80MHz wide channel, 2 spatial streams (chains), short guard interval, maximum theoretical data rate 866.6Mbit/s.
- Also check CCQ. This may be even more important then just checking the data rates. In ideal situation it should be close to 100%, but of course is somewhat lower in reality.
- Have a look at these values both when your client connection is idle, and while running a test. Also open the registration table in WinBox or WebFix and see how data rates and CCQ change over time while you are conducting tests.
Thanks so for example just a quick test with my phone:

RX rate: 580Mbps -80MHz/2S - the rates changes rather quickly, but the chains are almost 2. Sometimes it drops down to 1.
TX rate: 390Mbps-80MHz/2S/SGI
CCQ: 96% - however this is really fluctuating, it can drop down to 50% really quick. If I start a speedtest it will drop down to ~30% and will come back to around 70% slowly.

Or should I try 20/40MHz only?
Every little bit helps ...

RX rate : you are at MCS7 (good) / dual stream (limited by your client device) / long guard. (Long guard shows fallback , dropping to 1S further fallback) Might be interference
TX rate : you are only at MCS4 . dual stream/ short guard. These things are fluctuationg. Not so good here. Would love to know the signal strength of course.
CCQ: fluctuating and that makes the MCS and number of streams fall back. Comes from frame versus HW frame ratio. Means retransmits as well. Reduced data throughput.

Interference is the first suspect.

Search for a cleaner 5GHz space , 80 MHz wide to begin with. Are you still on indoors? Remove the setting for the extension channel, it will never come.
Depending on the received signal strength using the outdoor freq could be usefull.
Check 5GHz with "freq used" and "snooper". You will be disconnected from 5GHz while scanning, so connect via other path.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 1:44 am


Thank you very much! I know that some of this data is only makes sense if it is in real time, but I would happily share my config for experts to have a look at. Is the config I attached to my first post doesn't include all the config?

/interface wireless shows:
Flags: X - disabled, R - running 
 0  R ;;; Private Wi-Fi 5GHz
      name="wlan_atlas" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=QCA9984 mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas" frequency=5500 band=5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX secondary-channel=auto,0 scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 1    name="wlan_atlas_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_atlas mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes 
      default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 

 2  R name="wlan_fujijama" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:BB:5A:E3 arp=enabled interface-type=Atheros AR9300 mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama" frequency=auto band=2ghz-g/n channel-width=20/40mhz-XX secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 3    name="wlan_fujijama_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_fujijama mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes 
      default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 
Maybe there is some config which is not changed by me and should be changed... might be something trivial.
And security profiles are only using wpa2-psk aes (I read somewhere that tkip can also be a limiter in speed).
OK you are off the indoors frequency limit. Using channels 100-104-108--112 (5500-5520-5540-5560 MHz). until DFS makes it move. Power should be at "27dBm - antenna gain"
With XXXX you don't know where the control channel is, but with 5500 there is only the Ceee possibility (I hope!)
 
heidarren
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:56 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 9:13 am

[/quote]

How did you get these speeds, what configuration do you use?
[/quote]

Mostly like @bpwl advised, he is a very helpful guy, you should listen to him. I changed rates setting to basic rate 12 and 24, supported rate 12 to 54 too. Wireless speed depends on client device, all my test was done on iPhone XS Max and 11 Pro Max.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 10:52 am


Thank you very much! I know that some of this data is only makes sense if it is in real time, but I would happily share my config for experts to have a look at. Is the config I attached to my first post doesn't include all the config?

/interface wireless shows:
Flags: X - disabled, R - running 
 0  R ;;; Private Wi-Fi 5GHz
      name="wlan_atlas" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=QCA9984 mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas" frequency=5500 band=5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX secondary-channel=auto,0 scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 1    name="wlan_atlas_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_atlas mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes 
      default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 

 2  R name="wlan_fujijama" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:BB:5A:E3 arp=enabled interface-type=Atheros AR9300 mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama" frequency=auto band=2ghz-g/n channel-width=20/40mhz-XX secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 3    name="wlan_fujijama_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_fujijama mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes 
      default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 
Maybe there is some config which is not changed by me and should be changed... might be something trivial.
And security profiles are only using wpa2-psk aes (I read somewhere that tkip can also be a limiter in speed).
OK you are off the indoors frequency limit. Using channels 100-104-108--112 (5500-5520-5540-5560 MHz). until DFS makes it move. Power should be at "27dBm - antenna gain"
With XXXX you don't know where the control channel is, but with 5500 there is only the Ceee possibility (I hope!)
Yes I have changed it from indoors to any!
When looking at the current channel I can see: 5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)+5210/80/P(20dBm)
So yes, you might be right about the Control channel, and I always get Ceee.
So I should increase the antenna gain from 3dBi to 27dBi?

Ps.: I already tried using freq usage, but sometimes I don't get the full list of the available channels, it just shows the portion of it. Basically I have used that and some other tools (insiider and netspot) to get some info on the used frequencies here.
I will try it with Snooper too!
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 11:15 am

On TKIP: (I read somewhere that tkip can also be a limiter in speed).
Klembord-2.jpg
Taken from https://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/ZA13/uldis.pdf .
There is more interesting info in this presentation, like on the "rate selection" and the flapping of the rates you also have.
This rate flapping is somewhat the most difficult thing to handle, and I do not always get it stable enough with Mikrotik. They changed a lot the last year on this, and mostly on the ARM hardware. I tought it was under control in 6.45.6 (stable) , but it reappeared in 6.45.8 (long term) and 6.46 (stable). Its very environment dependent. So this is more an impression than a validated test.

Rate selection is different in every brand. Its like driving a car with an automatic gearbox downhill. The way you keep it stable is different with every brand. BMW is the smartest as it uses the tilt-meter in its algoritms. In chrysler you limit the highest gear. In KIA you go to (semi-)manual. If you apply the control handling of a Chrysler to a Toyota Prius, you end up in a run-away condition, and might kill yourselves.

Draytek has its "new algoritm" button , Engenius allows to set the maximum MCS , Mikrotik allows to select the usable MCS'es in HT, and the MCS range in VHT. (Documented the Mikrotik way, we have to find out what works when). I stabilised Engenius by lowering to MCS 4 in a crowded environment. Its not linear, its the 16 QAM, 64 QAM, 256 QAM encoding that is the major step towards disturbance tolerant transmission.

At least disabling Long Guard, and disabling lower interface rates in the hope to stabilise, is like disabling the lower gears when driving downhill.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 11:44 am


Yes I have changed it from indoors to any!
When looking at the current channel I can see: 5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)+5210/80/P(20dBm)
So yes, you might be right about the Control channel, and I always get Ceee.
So I should increase the antenna gain from 3dBi to 27dBi?

Ps.: I already tried using freq usage, but sometimes I don't get the full list of the available channels, it just shows the portion of it. Basically I have used that and some other tools (insiider and netspot) to get some info on the used frequencies here.
I will try it with Snooper too!
Switch to "any", indeed , have seen that. That's why it uses 5500 .
I don't favor that secondary channel When looking at the current channel I can see: 5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)+5210/80/P(20dBm), it is not used by your client device and it is in the already used 5 GHz range as you mentioned, and it is lower power. So I would set the secondary channel to "none". You are getting "ac" and that is fine. Maybe limit the band to "5 GHz-only-ac".
Well Ceee instead of XXXX will not harm at least.

The antenna gain will set the TX power. With the current setting of 3 dBi you get 27dBm - 3 dBi = 24 dBm overall for the radio. On 4 antenna this will be reduced by the factor 4 , or 6 dBm. So it is 18 dBm per antenna. The total radiated power in the gained direction is 18+6+3= 27 dBm. (Gained direction is a thorus or donut arround the antenna, so perpendicular on the antenna. Avoid being in the direction where the antenna points too, there is no signal in that direction)

Setting to 27 dBi would reduce the TX power tremendously. But the hardware chips will not even follow below 2 dBm.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 7:54 pm

As also others are having similar problems, for example:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=138895
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=158709
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=157869
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=157688

then If You finish Your experiment, please let us know the final result - did You get same or ever better speed, then Your old router did provide and with what config?
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 9:24 pm


Yes I have changed it from indoors to any!
When looking at the current channel I can see: 5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)+5210/80/P(20dBm)
So yes, you might be right about the Control channel, and I always get Ceee.
So I should increase the antenna gain from 3dBi to 27dBi?

Ps.: I already tried using freq usage, but sometimes I don't get the full list of the available channels, it just shows the portion of it. Basically I have used that and some other tools (insiider and netspot) to get some info on the used frequencies here.
I will try it with Snooper too!
Switch to "any", indeed , have seen that. That's why it uses 5500 .
I don't favor that secondary channel When looking at the current channel I can see: 5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)+5210/80/P(20dBm), it is not used by your client device and it is in the already used 5 GHz range as you mentioned, and it is lower power. So I would set the secondary channel to "none". You are getting "ac" and that is fine. Maybe limit the band to "5 GHz-only-ac".
Well Ceee instead of XXXX will not harm at least.

The antenna gain will set the TX power. With the current setting of 3 dBi you get 27dBm - 3 dBi = 24 dBm overall for the radio. On 4 antenna this will be reduced by the factor 4 , or 6 dBm. So it is 18 dBm per antenna. The total radiated power in the gained direction is 18+6+3= 27 dBm. (Gained direction is a thorus or donut arround the antenna, so perpendicular on the antenna. Avoid being in the direction where the antenna points too, there is no signal in that direction)

Setting to 27 dBi would reduce the TX power tremendously. But the hardware chips will not even follow below 2 dBm.
Thanks! So today I will try to disable secondary channel. If I remember correctly I have tried it but it came up with an error. The doc said I should put a 0 there to disable it. I will try that again.
Unfortunately I don't want to disable a/n first. It would be my last option, because lot of older devices does support 5GHz, but not ac. And even n provides much better numbers on these devices than on 2.4 GHz (which is not surprising seeing that crowded frequency).
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 9:31 pm

As also others are having similar problems, for example:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=138895
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=158709
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=157869
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=157688

then If You finish Your experiment, please let us know the final result - did You get same or ever better speed, then Your old router did provide and with what config?
First, I get your frustration. I also don't like if I have to pay a lot of money for something which doesn't seem to work first as it should.
However in my setup, this is already better than my old router. The response is much better (ping doesn't seem to be that much better - the numbers were also great on the old router, around 10-11ms now RB4011 around 7-9 ms on remote servers, however local devices opens instantly in browser - which has a webserver) and also the old router seemed to drop the internet 2-3 times a day. It was only a 30sec-1min outage, but it was annoying and I thought it is because of the ISP. Now that also seem to be gone. Also, the speed is a little bit better and much more consistent...

Not to mention that with this device I was able to use VLANs to seperate my Guest and IoT networks from my private devices. Which I really wanted to do, considering that I have a lot of IoT devices...
However I'm also hoped and hoping that I can achieve better results with Wi-Fi on this device.
I will try new things tonight (I don't have time to fiddle with this during the day - and also everyone needs internet access during daytime, because of the current situation) and see if I can improve it further. Of course, I will post my findings here.

Ps.: I just saw that what you have linked, all of them are about RB2011 which is a different device and much more older. However I also saw other threads complaining about the speed of the RB4011 WLAN
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 9:49 pm


First, I get your frustration. I also don't like if I have to pay a lot of money for something which doesn't seem to work first as it should.
I have accept the fact, that I made mistake, however, I'm honestly curious - can someone fine tune the device and if so, then with what config, as this will help current and new users and most of all, as I have noticed, that a lot (similar) threads are unfinished, so it's good if Your thread get's some finale, no matter what it is. Personally I'm mainly interested about max speed (is down and up equal or not) and coverage.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 10:06 pm



Thanks! So today I will try to disable secondary channel. If I remember correctly I have tried it but it came up with an error. The doc said I should put a 0 there to disable it. I will try that again.
Unfortunately I don't want to disable a/n first. It would be my last option, because lot of older devices does support 5GHz, but not ac. And even n provides much better numbers on these devices than on 2.4 GHz (which is not surprising seeing that crowded frequency).
No problem. Of course if you need other modes than ac you need to enable them.
N is obvious . The A is the previous generation to N, So if n/ac would already be better than a/n/ac. But if you need a, then leave it on.

I have not said anything on the 2.4 GHz, just show it pass in the text. But there you should consider to drop the b mode (much older than a and g and has a major impact on performance (1 MHz beacons instead of 6 MHz beacons)). In an overcrowded 2.4 GHz only 20 MHz channels should be used , not 40 MHz; And lets hope everyone is on channel 1,6 and 11 .
One of my favorite texts: http://divdyn.com/docs/2.4-GHz-is-Dead-v1.00.pdf

For the secondary channel I think it must just be blanco, no data at all. In winbox use the up arrow at the right to make it blanco (and grey).
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon May 11, 2020 10:54 pm

Tuning is tuning, and that is sometimes more an art than a science. But I love to do it. Getting 10 times better performance gives me the kick, and I achieved this many times in my live, on all sorts of systems. (Sometimes by doing unconventional things, after learning how things work inside. There is never a guarantee it will be a success).

That said this will not deliver a config that can be copy-pasted to another situation. The universal settings that will deliver better performance in all situations are already known by the programmers and implemented. What is to be copied are the methods used to analyse, diagnose, build a hypothesis, deduce a potential fix, implement this, check and evaluate.
(This in contrast to : tweak a parameter and run again a speedtest.net and make an evaluation of the tweak out of that speedtest. The relation between tweak and measurement must be much closer.)

Mikrotiks wifi is not very stable. The wifi on ARM devices is worse. The port of RouterOS to a multicore/variable speed other architecture has proven to be cumbersome. (This happens quite often with a port.) Since 6.45.6 it is stable enough to put it at the level of the other MIPSBE,SMIPS, MMIPS etc architectures.

Every vendor struggles with the wifi stability in the AP-client environment. The rate selection strategie is their own, and they need to optimise it for BYOD situations: unknown environments. In a clean LOS , closeby, no interference or reflection environment, nobody has any problems. But when the signal is not optimal, then the strategie chosen defines the outcome. Some have forseen even a parameter to "tweak the agressiveness" of the rate selector, or let the customer choose between 2 algoritmes.

Mikrotik gives us the "hw_retry" as related parameter, to soften the agressiveness with which the rate goes up, too high for this noisy environment, and falls back. A steady lower MCS would be much better. Tweaking hw_retry in a clean environment would be wrong. It depends on many factors if you do this or not.

Tweak buttons here will be (to begin with, and with check and double check and evaluation after every tweak)
Channel selection
TX-power (via antenna gain)
Bandwidth (40 or 80?)
Number of chains used (all 4 or 3 or 2?)
Max MCS rate (per chain)
hw-retries
no default forwarding (avoid that the AP has to buffer and retransmit the highspeed (as unicast received) multicast and broadcast , again but at the basic rate)
multicast helper=full (eliminate the fallback to basic rates every 100 ms for beacon and broadcasts) by sending multicasts and broadcasts as unicasts

etc etc

This already gives more than 100's different combinations of settings. Trial and error would never try them all. Systematic stepping forward could help.
(I got my wAP ac - hAP ac2 connection over 5GHz through 2 walls and one ceiling stable (no more flapping) just by at the end setting hw_retry=3 and multicast helper =full. MCS rate is one step lower but stable. But that is my setup here, not something that will also bring any improvement in other situations)

Some references to read ...

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5 ... td-p/52395
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5 ... 395/page/2

From: book 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide (Google preview :-) )
Klembord-2.jpg
From the wiki (and some projection from ptmp to the AP home setup)


Klembord-3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:08 am


First, I get your frustration. I also don't like if I have to pay a lot of money for something which doesn't seem to work first as it should.
I have accept the fact, that I made mistake, however, I'm honestly curious - can someone fine tune the device and if so, then with what config, as this will help current and new users and most of all, as I have noticed, that a lot (similar) threads are unfinished, so it's good if Your thread get's some finale, no matter what it is. Personally I'm mainly interested about max speed (is down and up equal or not) and coverage.
I will surely do! You can see that I have other threads where no one commented, but I still comment there my findings, because I know that this might be useful for someone (mainly who knows even less than me) to setup something in this system which is written nowhere.
And as @bpwl said, there is no copy and paste config. Yes I know that there are brands which seems to be working out-of-the-box with much better Wi-Fi speed, but not Wi-Fi speed is the only point for me in networking. And if you buy any other expensive router which said to have blazing fast Wi-Fi and it does not work, you are screwed. You can't fine tune it or just in very basic way, so you might even have worse result in the end...
Last edited by rkrisi on Tue May 12, 2020 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:11 am



Thanks! So today I will try to disable secondary channel. If I remember correctly I have tried it but it came up with an error. The doc said I should put a 0 there to disable it. I will try that again.
Unfortunately I don't want to disable a/n first. It would be my last option, because lot of older devices does support 5GHz, but not ac. And even n provides much better numbers on these devices than on 2.4 GHz (which is not surprising seeing that crowded frequency).
No problem. Of course if you need other modes than ac you need to enable them.
N is obvious . The A is the previous generation to N, So if n/ac would already be better than a/n/ac. But if you need a, then leave it on.

I have not said anything on the 2.4 GHz, just show it pass in the text. But there you should consider to drop the b mode (much older than a and g and has a major impact on performance (1 MHz beacons instead of 6 MHz beacons)). In an overcrowded 2.4 GHz only 20 MHz channels should be used , not 40 MHz; And lets hope everyone is on channel 1,6 and 11 .
One of my favorite texts: http://divdyn.com/docs/2.4-GHz-is-Dead-v1.00.pdf

For the secondary channel I think it must just be blanco, no data at all. In winbox use the up arrow at the right to make it blanco (and grey).
I have already dropped b in 2.4GHz yesterday... Just after I have posted my config as I remembered that this might not be good.
Ok, I will try 20MHz on 2.4GHz. I don't really care about the 2.4GHz speed, because mainly IoT devices use it which don't need that much speed, but I'm happy if I can improve the speed there also.

You are right, enabling a doesn't did any difference on 5GHz availability. I have an older MacBook which worked with my previous router on 5GHz, but not with this one... That's why I have tried it.

I have seen it here:

https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:I ... e/Wireless
secondary-channel (integer; Default: auto) Specifies secondary channel, required to enable 80+80MHz transmission. To disable 80+80MHz functionality, set secondary-channel to 0

I will try both again (with 0 and clearing the input) and might report this in the Wiki if this is incorrect.

Thanks for all your help!
Last edited by rkrisi on Tue May 12, 2020 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:23 am

Tuning is tuning, and that is sometimes more an art than a science. But I love to do it. Getting 10 times better performance gives me the kick, and I achieved this many times in my live, on all sorts of systems. (Sometimes by doing unconventional things, after learning how things work inside. There is never a guarantee it will be a success).

That said this will not deliver a config that can be copy-pasted to another situation. The universal settings that will deliver better performance in all situations are already known by the programmers and implemented. What is to be copied are the methods used to analyse, diagnose, build a hypothesis, deduce a potential fix, implement this, check and evaluate.
(This in contrast to : tweak a parameter and run again a speedtest.net and make an evaluation of the tweak out of that speedtest. The relation between tweak and measurement must be much closer.)

Mikrotiks wifi is not very stable. The wifi on ARM devices is worse. The port of RouterOS to a multicore/variable speed other architecture has proven to be cumbersome. (This happens quite often with a port.) Since 6.45.6 it is stable enough to put it at the level of the other MIPSBE,SMIPS, MMIPS etc architectures.

Every vendor struggles with the wifi stability in the AP-client environment. The rate selection strategie is their own, and they need to optimise it for BYOD situations: unknown environments. In a clean LOS , closeby, no interference or reflection environment, nobody has any problems. But when the signal is not optimal, then the strategie chosen defines the outcome. Some have forseen even a parameter to "tweak the agressiveness" of the rate selector, or let the customer choose between 2 algoritmes.

Mikrotik gives us the "hw_retry" as related parameter, to soften the agressiveness with which the rate goes up, too high for this noisy environment, and falls back. A steady lower MCS would be much better. Tweaking hw_retry in a clean environment would be wrong. It depends on many factors if you do this or not.

Tweak buttons here will be (to begin with, and with check and double check and evaluation after every tweak)
Channel selection
TX-power (via antenna gain)
Bandwidth (40 or 80?)
Number of chains used (all 4 or 3 or 2?)
Max MCS rate (per chain)
hw-retries
no default forwarding (avoid that the AP has to buffer and retransmit the highspeed (as unicast received) multicast and broadcast , again but at the basic rate)
multicast helper=full (eliminate the fallback to basic rates every 100 ms for beacon and broadcasts) by sending multicasts and broadcasts as unicasts

etc etc

This already gives more than 100's different combinations of settings. Trial and error would never try them all. Systematic stepping forward could help.
(I got my wAP ac - hAP ac2 connection over 5GHz through 2 walls and one ceiling stable (no more flapping) just by at the end setting hw_retry=3 and multicast helper =full. MCS rate is one step lower but stable. But that is my setup here, not something that will also bring any improvement in other situations)

Some references to read ...

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5 ... td-p/52395
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5 ... 395/page/2

From: book 802.11 Wireless Networks: The Definitive Guide (Google preview :-) )
Klembord-2.jpg

From the wiki (and some projection from ptmp to the AP home setup)



Klembord-3.jpg
I know that this is not easy :D
And I live in a apartment house, with 30 surrounding flats. So this is also not the ideal situation, so I can accept if I can't get that much speed compared to someone who lives in a private house.
My previous cheap router seemed really fast when I bought it several years back (even better than now). Mainly because (I think) there were almost no 5GHz (ac) Wi-Fi around me at that time. The 802.11ac was so new, that I was the first who used it here.
And today, even these ISP provided modem-routers support it...

In contrast, in my private weekend house, I have a cheap TP-Link router only with 2.4GHz (g/n) and no surrounding Wi-Fi routers. I can even connect and use it from 50 meter away from the house with a decent speed. And the router is located on the other side of the house, so the signal at least have to "pass" 2 walls also...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:30 am

Ok, the results seems great!

2.4GHz speed improved by choosing 20MHz only, now I was able to get 50Mbps max and around 35Mbps avg. Previously it was around 20-25Mbps max.
Regarding 5GHz: you were right. I had to clear Secondary channel to turn it off. However the speed does not improved much. Seems more stable than before, but I could only get 210Mbps max, before around 200Mbps.
I will inspect now the used frequencies and try to change them like this and also have a look at the Registration. Also the CCQ seems to improve with this. Now it will never drop below 50% during tests and on idle is above 90% with the tested devices. During speedtest it also just only drops to 50% for a sec and I could say that it does around 70% on avg.
Just a small, noob question: How could I add comments on Registrations? I was able to do it somehow before, but now I could not find it. It will be much easier to select my devices if I can tag them with a name...
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:47 am

Ok, the results seems great!

2.4GHz speed improved by choosing 20MHz only, now I was able to get 50Mbps max and around 35Mbps avg. Previously it was around 20-25Mbps max.
Regarding 5GHz: you were right. I had to clear Secondary channel to turn it off. However the speed does not improved much. Seems more stable than before, but I could only get 210Mbps max, before around 200Mbps.
I will inspect now the used frequencies and try to change them like this and also have a look at the Registration. Also the CCQ seems to improve with this. Now it will never drop below 50% during tests and on idle is above 90% with the tested devices. During speedtest it also just only drops to 50% for a sec and I could say that it does around 70% on avg.
Just a small, noob question: How could I add comments on Registrations? I was able to do it somehow before, but now I could not find it. It will be much easier to select my devices if I can tag them with a name...
On the right in the registration table you have a small down arrow. This menu can add "inline comments", but also select what columns to show. You need more than the defaults to be able to see what signal, CCQ, and interface rate you have.
Klembord-2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:10 am

Ok, the results seems great!

2.4GHz speed improved by choosing 20MHz only, now I was able to get 50Mbps max and around 35Mbps avg. Previously it was around 20-25Mbps max.
Regarding 5GHz: you were right. I had to clear Secondary channel to turn it off. However the speed does not improved much. Seems more stable than before, but I could only get 210Mbps max, before around 200Mbps.
I will inspect now the used frequencies and try to change them like this and also have a look at the Registration. Also the CCQ seems to improve with this. Now it will never drop below 50% during tests and on idle is above 90% with the tested devices. During speedtest it also just only drops to 50% for a sec and I could say that it does around 70% on avg.
Just a small, noob question: How could I add comments on Registrations? I was able to do it somehow before, but now I could not find it. It will be much easier to select my devices if I can tag them with a name...
On the right in the registration table you have a small down arrow. This menu can add "inline comments", but also select what columns to show. You need more than the defaults to be able to see what signal, CCQ, and interface rate you have.

Klembord-2.jpg
Thanks! I have already enabled the most needed ones. However if I remember it right, I was able to add not just inline comments, but normal ones.
Anyway I have did some testing and it always seems to me that 5500 MHz selected as frequency is the best I could get.

Just to get an overview of the networks, I have attached a screeshot from Netspot. The greenish filled space is my Wi-Fi.
I have tried clearing the country and using superchannel just for testing so that I don't have to wait 10 min, but I could not get better results than 210Mbps.

The config now I have:
Flags: X - disabled, R - running 
 0  R ;;; Private Wi-Fi 5GHz
      name="wlan_atlas" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=QCA9984 mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas" frequency=5500 band=5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 1    name="wlan_atlas_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_atlas mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes 
      default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 

 2  R name="wlan_fujijama" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:BB:5A:E3 arp=enabled interface-type=Atheros AR9300 mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama" frequency=auto band=2ghz-g/n channel-width=20mhz secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 3    name="wlan_fujijama_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_fujijama mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes 
      default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 
I will try to have a deeper look at the rates/CCQ later tomorrow...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
heidarren
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:56 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 9:18 am


This already gives more than 100's different combinations of settings. Trial and error would never try them all. Systematic stepping forward could help.
(I got my wAP ac - hAP ac2 connection over 5GHz through 2 walls and one ceiling stable (no more flapping) just by at the end setting hw_retry=3 and multicast helper =full. MCS rate is one step lower but stable. But that is my setup here, not something that will also bring any improvement in other situations)
I noticed if I set "Multicast Helper" to full, my client will stay below 1(s) in "Last Activity", in stead of below 30(s), worry if it will drain my client battery, do you see any battery draining problem?
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 10:23 am

My previous cheap router seemed really fast when I bought it several years back (even better than now).
So after all this testing, Mikrotik speed is about 10% better, then old stock router does provide? Is the speed constantly better, or it just jumped one time (like said before, with Mikrotik, in same conditions, every wifi speedtest gives a different result)? If so, then the whole configuration is pure placebo. :(

However, try few more things:
Use another speedtest - https://speed.rimon.net.il/ and test before and after every change.
Wireless , amsdu limit and amsdu threshold > 2048
Wireless, adaptive noise immunity > ap-and-client-mode

IP, settings, route cache > no
Firewall, input, forward, fasttrack, remove connection state untracked
Firewall, disable fasttrack
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 10:50 am

My previous cheap router seemed really fast when I bought it several years back (even better than now).
So after all this testing, Mikrotik speed is about 10% better, then old stock router does provide? Is the speed constantly better, or it just jumped one time (like said before, with Mikrotik, in same conditions, every wifi speedtest gives a different result)? If so, then the whole configuration is pure placebo. :(

However, try few more things:
Use another speedtest - https://speed.rimon.net.il/ and test before and after every change.
Wireless , amsdu limit and amsdu threshold > 2048
Wireless, adaptive noise immunity > ap-and-client-mode

IP, settings, route cache > no
Firewall, input, forward, fasttrack, remove connection state untracked
Firewall, disable fasttrack
If I have to say, I would say yes that the speed is just around 10% better with my old router, and compared to a few years back, it is much slower.
But as I said, in general when you browse the internet or do anything even locally on the network it feels so much faster - and this is not just placebo.
I would be really glad if I can figure out how I could get better speeds in speedtests, but this is not the dealbreaker for me (it seems like a lot of people use this as a measurement of how good the network is - like Megapixels of phone cameras a few years back - it usually means nothing), because with my previous router, everything loaded much-much slower...
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 11:01 am


If I have to say, I would say yes that the speed is just around 10% better with my old router, and compared to a few years back, it is much slower.
But as I said, in general when you browse the internet or do anything even locally on the network it feels so much faster - and this is not just placebo.
I would be really glad if I can figure out how I could get better speeds in speedtests, but this is not the dealbreaker for me (it seems like a lot of people use this as a measurement of how good the network is - like Megapixels of phone cameras a few years back - it usually means nothing), because with my previous router, everything loaded much-much slower...
So like "heidarren" said "You buy MT wireless product, then you study and learned those knowledge to understand why does it perform so bad, you start to accept it and think it's normal to have this kinda performance" :).

Tuning is fun but it's difficult to measure the result, as Mikrotik behaves with same settings, a different way in a different time.

One more idea, connect old router as accesspoint only to Mikrotik with lan cable and test, does is now work better and faster?
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 11:34 am


If I have to say, I would say yes that the speed is just around 10% better with my old router, and compared to a few years back, it is much slower.
But as I said, in general when you browse the internet or do anything even locally on the network it feels so much faster - and this is not just placebo.
I would be really glad if I can figure out how I could get better speeds in speedtests, but this is not the dealbreaker for me (it seems like a lot of people use this as a measurement of how good the network is - like Megapixels of phone cameras a few years back - it usually means nothing), because with my previous router, everything loaded much-much slower...
So like "heidarren" said "You buy MT wireless product, then you study and learned those knowledge to understand why does it perform so bad, you start to accept it and think it's normal to have this kinda performance" :).

Tuning is fun but it's difficult to measure the result, as Mikrotik behaves with same settings, a different way in a different time.

One more idea, connect old router as accesspoint only to Mikrotik with lan cable and test, does is now work better and faster?
Yes I also thought about testing it, I will try it soon when I have some time.
I don't want to accept this performance and I know that this should work much better, but as you saw, tweaking 2.4GHz brought a 5x speed increase - which is still far from the said 300Mbps, but I don't think you can get even 200Mbps anywhere in the world on 2.4GHz, considering the crowdiness of the 2.4GHz frequency.
Previously on my old router I was only able to get 10Mbps so I don't say this is bad...
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 11:42 am


This already gives more than 100's different combinations of settings. Trial and error would never try them all. Systematic stepping forward could help.
(I got my wAP ac - hAP ac2 connection over 5GHz through 2 walls and one ceiling stable (no more flapping) just by at the end setting hw_retry=3 and multicast helper =full. MCS rate is one step lower but stable. But that is my setup here, not something that will also bring any improvement in other situations)
I noticed if I set "Multicast Helper" to full, my client will stay below 1(s) in "Last Activity", in stead of below 30(s), worry if it will drain my client battery, do you see any battery draining problem?
Good point, to be checked. But broadcast helper is nr 8 in the list ! 7 others to test first.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 11:54 am


Yes I also thought about testing it, I will try it soon when I have some time.
I don't want to accept this performance and I know that this should work much better, but as you saw, tweaking 2.4GHz brought a 5x speed increase - which is still far from the said 300Mbps, but I don't think you can get even 200Mbps anywhere in the world on 2.4GHz, considering the crowdiness of the 2.4GHz frequency.
Previously on my old router I was only able to get 10Mbps so I don't say this is bad...
By idea adaptive noise immunity could help You. I'm also getting now max about 50% (which is still pathetic) of lan speed with totally unlogical settings and no matter I do, upload speed is better, then download. So I mainly use only lan now. It's like Mikrotik is an old walky/talky, either talk or listen, but not both in same time, like in these day's mobile phones do.

I'm convinced that Your old router, acting as accesspoint (no routing, less cpu = more speed), will perform well. Just make sure, that You manually adjust for both devices a different channels.

But this is a good lesson for the future, don't but buy a wifi device from the one, whose main business is not wifi related, buy it from one who also makes mobile phones/routers etc, as they know what they are doing as this is their main business.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 11:56 am


Thanks! I have already enabled the most needed ones. However if I remember it right, I was able to add not just inline comments, but normal ones.
Anyway I have did some testing and it always seems to me that 5500 MHz selected as frequency is the best I could get.

Just to get an overview of the networks, I have attached a screeshot from Netspot. The greenish filled space is my Wi-Fi.
I have tried clearing the country and using superchannel just for testing so that I don't have to wait 10 min, but I could not get better results than 210Mbps.

The config now I have:
Flags: X - disabled, R - running 
 0  R ;;; Private Wi-Fi 5GHz
      name="wlan_atlas" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=QCA9984 mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas" frequency=5500 band=5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 1    name="wlan_atlas_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_atlas mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes 
      default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 

 2  R name="wlan_fujijama" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:BB:5A:E3 arp=enabled interface-type=Atheros AR9300 mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama" frequency=auto band=2ghz-g/n channel-width=20mhz secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 3    name="wlan_fujijama_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_fujijama mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes 
      default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 
I will try to have a deeper look at the rates/CCQ later tomorrow...
Superchannel will not defeat DFS rules (anymore). The 10 minutes are indeed disturbing, but sometimes the lucky choices while everyone avoids those channels.

You can see what those "auto" settings are doing. They are so selfisch to just spoil the whole spectrum by sitting in the middle of the spectrum. Normally you have 2 times 80 MHz for the indoor frequencies (up to 5500) and 3 times 80 MHz for the outdoor frequencies (above 5500 till 5700). In Europe I have no access to the upper range with the odd numbered channels.

Your used channel is not sitting correctly, or that display is not correct, and just taking channel 100 as centre frequency and drawing it symettrically around it. (Drawing should be Ceee 100, that is channel 100-104-108-112). How does inSSIDer draw it? What does the WLAN status say about the used frequency? I tought it was 5500MHz/Ceee.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:03 pm

Tuning is tuning, and that is sometimes more an art than a science. But I love to do it. Getting 10 times better performance gives me the kick, and I achieved this many times in my live, on all sorts of systems.
You throw suggestions/theories from left to right and give impression that Your own systems are working according to the specs. If so, then please tell us, what devices are You using, what speed are You getting, what coverage do You have etc?
Last edited by ksuuk on Tue May 12, 2020 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:03 pm

My previous cheap router seemed really fast when I bought it several years back (even better than now).
So after all this testing, Mikrotik speed is about 10% better, then old stock router does provide? Is the speed constantly better, or it just jumped one time (like said before, with Mikrotik, in same conditions, every wifi speedtest gives a different result)? If so, then the whole configuration is pure placebo. :(

However, try few more things:
Use another speedtest - https://speed.rimon.net.il/ and test before and after every change.
Wireless , amsdu limit and amsdu threshold > 2048
Wireless, adaptive noise immunity > ap-and-client-mode

IP, settings, route cache > no
Firewall, input, forward, fasttrack, remove connection state untracked
Firewall, disable fasttrack
Long range testing (over all elements at once) , doing other modifications in the mean time (disabling fasttrack). . Not my way of doing tuning. This has almost no change to succeed.
Concentrate on wifi first (the current bottleneck) . And make sure you measure as close over wifi as you can. Detailed mode registration enry is showing what you are using for wifi.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:10 pm


If I have to say, I would say yes that the speed is just around 10% better with my old router, and compared to a few years back, it is much slower.
But as I said, in general when you browse the internet or do anything even locally on the network it feels so much faster - and this is not just placebo.
I would be really glad if I can figure out how I could get better speeds in speedtests, but this is not the dealbreaker for me (it seems like a lot of people use this as a measurement of how good the network is - like Megapixels of phone cameras a few years back - it usually means nothing), because with my previous router, everything loaded much-much slower...
So like "heidarren" said "You buy MT wireless product, then you study and learned those knowledge to understand why does it perform so bad, you start to accept it and think it's normal to have this kinda performance" :).

Tuning is fun but it's difficult to measure the result, as Mikrotik behaves with same settings, a different way in a different time.

One more idea, connect old router as accesspoint only to Mikrotik with lan cable and test, does is now work better and faster?
Yes I also thought about testing it, I will try it soon when I have some time.
I don't want to accept this performance and I know that this should work much better, but as you saw, tweaking 2.4GHz brought a 5x speed increase - which is still far from the said 300Mbps, but I don't think you can get even 200Mbps anywhere in the world on 2.4GHz, considering the crowdiness of the 2.4GHz frequency.
Previously on my old router I was only able to get 10Mbps so I don't say this is bad...
By going to 20 MHz, we know what we we are doing, reducing interference, but halving the maximum speed to 150 Mbps for a 2x2 , MCS7 (2xMCS7=MCS14 in Mikrotik) , 20 MHz connection. This is in the MCSindex tables. No one can do better than what is theoretically possible.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:13 pm


Long range testing (over all elements at once) , doing other modifications in the mean time (disabling fasttrack). . Not my way of doing tuning. This has almost no change to succeed.
Concentrate on wifi first (the current bottleneck) . And make sure you measure as close over wifi as you can. Detailed mode registration enry is showing what you are using for wifi.
Do You have optional reading skills? As I did write - Use another speedtest - https://speed.rimon.net.il/ and test before and after every change.
And I am talking from my real results with my CAP ac, while You just theorize.

Again - You throw suggestions/theories from left to right and give impression that Your own systems are working according to the specs. If so, then please tell us, what devices are You using, what speed are You getting, what coverage do You have etc?
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:23 pm

Number of chains used (all 4 or 3 or 2?)
I saw this as deselecting chains (like in the ZA MUM presentation: ZA tips&tricks ). But the Mikrotik wiki FAQ pointed to another way of doing this ....

"If the client does not support Extended NSS and can only perform 2x2 transmission, set "vht-supported-mcs=mcs0-9,mcs0-9,none"
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:33 pm


Thanks! I have already enabled the most needed ones. However if I remember it right, I was able to add not just inline comments, but normal ones.
Anyway I have did some testing and it always seems to me that 5500 MHz selected as frequency is the best I could get.

Just to get an overview of the networks, I have attached a screeshot from Netspot. The greenish filled space is my Wi-Fi.
I have tried clearing the country and using superchannel just for testing so that I don't have to wait 10 min, but I could not get better results than 210Mbps.

The config now I have:
Flags: X - disabled, R - running 
 0  R ;;; Private Wi-Fi 5GHz
      name="wlan_atlas" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=QCA9984 mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas" frequency=5500 band=5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-XXXX secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 1    name="wlan_atlas_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:B9 arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_atlas mode=ap-bridge ssid="atlas-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes 
      default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 

 2  R name="wlan_fujijama" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C4:AD:34:BB:5A:E3 arp=enabled interface-type=Atheros AR9300 mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama" frequency=auto band=2ghz-g/n channel-width=20mhz secondary-channel="" scan-list=default wireless-protocol=802.11 vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none 
      wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=profile_private compression=no 

 3    name="wlan_fujijama_guest" mtu=1500 l2mtu=1600 mac-address=C6:AD:34:E9:0F:BA arp=enabled interface-type=virtual master-interface=wlan_fujijama mode=ap-bridge ssid="fujijama-Guest" vlan-mode=no-tag vlan-id=1 wds-mode=disabled wds-default-bridge=none wds-ignore-ssid=no bridge-mode=enabled default-authentication=yes 
      default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 hide-ssid=no security-profile=default 
I will try to have a deeper look at the rates/CCQ later tomorrow...
Superchannel will not defeat DFS rules (anymore). The 10 minutes are indeed disturbing, but sometimes the lucky choices while everyone avoids those channels.

You can see what those "auto" settings are doing. They are so selfisch to just spoil the whole spectrum by sitting in the middle of the spectrum. Normally you have 2 times 80 MHz for the indoor frequencies (up to 5500) and 3 times 80 MHz for the outdoor frequencies (above 5500 till 5700). In Europe I have no access to the upper range with the odd numbered channels.

Your used channel is not sitting correctly, or that display is not correct, and just taking channel 100 as centre frequency and drawing it symettrically around it. (Drawing should be Ceee 100, that is channel 100-104-108-112). How does inSSIDer draw it? What does the WLAN status say about the used frequency? I tought it was 5500MHz/Ceee.
Mikrotik says:
5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)

inSSIDer: shows it more correctly. However it does seem that there is no one uses these channels. I think that's why it works the best here.
Should I try a little bit higher frequency so it will fit 100-116 perfectly?

Also I don't think I have to look at other parts of the configuration except Wi-Fi (like firewall rules, etc..) because only Wi-Fi does not work as I would want, wired connection works as it should (and those configs, rules also applies to wired connections as well).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:39 pm

Right now:
Channel selection: 5500 MHz
TX-power (via antenna gain): Current TX Power: Default - Antenna Gain 3dBi
Bandwidth (40 or 80?): 20/40/80XXX
Number of chains used (all 4 or 3 or 2?): All 4 chains are used on TX and RX as well.
Max MCS rate (per chain): I could not find this setting anywhere...
hw-retries:
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:42 pm


Also I don't think I have to look at other parts of the configuration except Wi-Fi (like firewall rules, etc..) because only Wi-Fi does not work as I would want, wired connection works as it should (and those configs, rules also applies to wired connections as well).
But in my case they helped, even lan speed was always the same, so forget logic with Mikrotik, there is none.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 12:49 pm



Superchannel will not defeat DFS rules (anymore). The 10 minutes are indeed disturbing, but sometimes the lucky choices while everyone avoids those channels.

You can see what those "auto" settings are doing. They are so selfisch to just spoil the whole spectrum by sitting in the middle of the spectrum. Normally you have 2 times 80 MHz for the indoor frequencies (up to 5500) and 3 times 80 MHz for the outdoor frequencies (above 5500 till 5700). In Europe I have no access to the upper range with the odd numbered channels.

Your used channel is not sitting correctly, or that display is not correct, and just taking channel 100 as centre frequency and drawing it symettrically around it. (Drawing should be Ceee 100, that is channel 100-104-108-112). How does inSSIDer draw it? What does the WLAN status say about the used frequency? I tought it was 5500MHz/Ceee.
Mikrotik says:
5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)

inSSIDer: shows it more correctly. However it does seem that there is no one uses these channels. I think that's why it works the best here.
Should I try a little bit higher frequency so it will fit 100-116 perfectly?

Also I don't think I have to look at other parts of the configuration except Wi-Fi (like firewall rules, etc..) because only Wi-Fi does not work as I would want, wired connection works as it should (and those configs, rules also applies to wired connections as well).
inSIIDer better than Netspot in this. Interesting. Wifi analyzer on Android is even worse (does not show bandwidth used).
Higher frequency is not needed. 80 MHz is 4x20MHz not 5x20 MHz.
There are 2 networks on top of each other "atlas" and "atlastest?"/green .
Don't forget you have 3 usefull tools in any Mikrotik as well.
Seems quite clean at this moment, the 5 GHz spectrum.

I said nothing about antenna's. They are all upright and pararallel, no?
Would love to see the"registration" of your test client in "detail mode", it will show what antennas receive what signal.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:12 pm


Long range testing (over all elements at once) , doing other modifications in the mean time (disabling fasttrack). . Not my way of doing tuning. This has almost no change to succeed.
Concentrate on wifi first (the current bottleneck) . And make sure you measure as close over wifi as you can. Detailed mode registration enry is showing what you are using for wifi.
Do You have optional reading skills? As I did write - Use another speedtest - https://speed.rimon.net.il/ and test before and after every change.
And I am talking from my real results with my CAP ac, while You just theorize.

Again - You throw suggestions/theories from left to right and give impression that Your own systems are working according to the specs. If so, then please tell us, what devices are You using, what speed are You getting, what coverage do You have etc?
Why do I have to proof myself. The content of my contributions should be just of value enough.
And yes all my Mikrotiks are up to spec right now. I even get borred in checking. (Not a single glitch in the last 6 months, monitored continously with DUDE)
Bottleneck is now elsewhere (100 Mbps ethernet interfaces of the load balancers to the WAN)
So should replace the load balancers with a Mikrotik ... have to learn here how to set up a good load balancer.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=159546&hilit=holiday#p784335
(Replaces an installation with Ruckus, Engenius, Draytek, that only achieved 32 Mbps , and failed multiple times per week)
Client connection is with hAP ac2, wAP ac, cAp ac ... no problems ...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:13 pm



Superchannel will not defeat DFS rules (anymore). The 10 minutes are indeed disturbing, but sometimes the lucky choices while everyone avoids those channels.

You can see what those "auto" settings are doing. They are so selfisch to just spoil the whole spectrum by sitting in the middle of the spectrum. Normally you have 2 times 80 MHz for the indoor frequencies (up to 5500) and 3 times 80 MHz for the outdoor frequencies (above 5500 till 5700). In Europe I have no access to the upper range with the odd numbered channels.

Your used channel is not sitting correctly, or that display is not correct, and just taking channel 100 as centre frequency and drawing it symettrically around it. (Drawing should be Ceee 100, that is channel 100-104-108-112). How does inSSIDer draw it? What does the WLAN status say about the used frequency? I tought it was 5500MHz/Ceee.
Mikrotik says:
5500/20-Ceee/ac/DP(24dBm)

inSSIDer: shows it more correctly. However it does seem that there is no one uses these channels. I think that's why it works the best here.
Should I try a little bit higher frequency so it will fit 100-116 perfectly?

Also I don't think I have to look at other parts of the configuration except Wi-Fi (like firewall rules, etc..) because only Wi-Fi does not work as I would want, wired connection works as it should (and those configs, rules also applies to wired connections as well).
inSIIDer better than Netspot in this. Interesting. Wifi analyzer on Android is even worse (does not show bandwidth used).
Higher frequency is not needed. 80 MHz is 4x20MHz not 5x20 MHz.
There are 2 networks on top of each other "atlas" and "atlastest?"/green .
Don't forget you have 3 usefull tools in any Mikrotik as well.
Seems quite clean at this moment, the 5 GHz spectrum.

I said nothing about antenna's. They are all upright and pararallel, no?
Would love to see the"registration" of your test client in "detail mode", it will show what antennas receive what signal.
Yes they are top of each other (atlas and atlas-Guest) because the Guest network is just a pure virtual AP (so it is the same Wireless card in the router - so that should not be a problem I think right?).
The router is laid down in my Living Room, from around 1.6m above ground (so it is not too high not too low - in my opinion - same location as my previous router). I can move it around a bit, but my stupid ISP placed the modem there so I can't change rooms or anything at large (I don't have wired network in my home sadly).
Antennas are not parrallel they are tilted a little bit outside, something like on this picture: https://mikrotik.com/product/rb4011igs_5hacq2hnd_in
I will try to make them parrallel first. Also does the facing of the router matters? I thought these are not directional antennas so it does not matter that much, but maybe. Right now the ports side (where all the ports are) are facing the wall...

Ps.: I will provide a screenshot of the registration in detail mode later today.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:22 pm


Why do I have to proof myself. The content of my contributions should be just of value enough.
And yes all my Mikrotiks are up to spec right now. I even get borred in checking. (Not a single glitch in the last 6 months, monitored continously with DUDE)
Bottleneck is now elsewhere (100 Mbps ethernet interfaces of the load balancers to the WAN)
Blaah, show the conf.

And if You have 100 Mbps WAN, then how can You have no right to give any suggestion to get better speed as You can't test/achieve such speed Yourself. So Your suggestions are just a theories.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:32 pm

[
The router is laid down in my Living Room, from around 1.6m above ground (so it is not too high not too low - in my opinion - same location as my previous router).
And You are testing where?
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:35 pm


Why do I have to proof myself. The content of my contributions should be just of value enough.
And yes all my Mikrotiks are up to spec right now. I even get borred in checking. (Not a single glitch in the last 6 months, monitored continously with DUDE)
Bottleneck is now elsewhere (100 Mbps ethernet interfaces of the load balancers to the WAN)
Blaah, show the conf.

And if You have 100 Mbps WAN, then how can You have no right to give any suggestion to get better speed as You can't test/achieve such speed Yourself. So Your suggestions are just a theories.
WAN speed is not all. I also test it with iperf for example which tests real speed, not just some speedtest server speed.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 1:44 pm



WAN speed is not all. I also test it with iperf for example which tests real speed, not just some speedtest server speed.
You are testing local network with iperf? If so, then if You are using mainly local network > wan, testing local network doesn't help You much, as real life is different.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:08 pm

[
The router is laid down in my Living Room, from around 1.6m above ground (so it is not too high not too low - in my opinion - same location as my previous router).
And You are testing where?
Around 10m away from the router, same room
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:09 pm



WAN speed is not all. I also test it with iperf for example which tests real speed, not just some speedtest server speed.
You are testing local network with iperf? If so, then if You are using mainly local network > wan, testing local network doesn't help You much, as real life is different.
No I'm using iperf and speedtest tools also (like speedtest.net and fast.com)
But I don't get you. What is different in real life? I have a lot of local devices which I can and have to access so these has nothing to do with WAN speed (copying files locally for example).
Also if you have a slow WAN, how could you test your local networks true speed?
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:17 pm

I for ONE am very impressed with @bpwl contribution .... certainly provides much to contemplate especially if YOU are a GEEK :-)

I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade but wireless TODAY wireless is MIMO centric assuming that all devices are MIMO capable [N, AC, AX and 6E] ... so my contribution here is to state that 2.4Ghz 20Mhz channel width is absolutely wrong WRONG wrong from a performance perspective and from a MIMO perspective. To get performance the MIMO client and MIMO server must talk MIMO and that means at minimum 2 x 2 streams .... not 1x2 or 1x1 ... but 2x2 .... in MikroTik speak streams = chains. so if you want better performance utilizing 2.4Ghx you must use channel width of 40Mhz assuming that your wireless client is MIMO capable. If you have a mix of b, g, a wireless clients then 40Mhz channel width will have negative impact on performance and connectivity --- so the only solution from a performance perspective is to get rid of you non-MIMO wireless clients, Performance on the 5Ghz MIMO a channel width of 80Mhz is needed This ends my contribution :-) Nope not planning on going deeper --- want more info LEARN about MIMO especially True MIMO invented by Airgo Networks now owned by Qualcomm,

BTW, Many products today provide an AI engine that automatically TUNES your wireless server for the very best optimum settings to deliver PERFORMANCE to wireless clients .... and they work remarkably well .... Like Ubiquity Controllers starting with version 5.12.66-13102-1, ALL Netgear MESH systems under the RBK series ...as a small example. Perhaps in the not to distant future MikroTik will also have a AI engine
Last edited by mozerd on Tue May 12, 2020 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:21 pm


Around 10m away from the router, same room
Have You made tests next to the router? As if You can't get decent speed next to the router, then the router is just bad and no matter You adjust, speed won't get better.

But if next to the router speed is good, then adjusting router place, antennas etc, may help signal quality 10 m away.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:25 pm

No I'm using iperf and speedtest tools also (like speedtest.net and fast.com)
But I don't get you. What is different in real life? I have a lot of local devices which I can and have to access so these has nothing to do with WAN speed (copying files locally for example).
Also if you have a slow WAN, how could you test your local networks true speed?
Ok, got it, You have also local network traffic. But anyway Your WAN isn't low?
 
andriys
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:29 pm

so my contribution here is to state that 2.4Ghz 20Mhz channel width is absolutely wrong WRONG wrong from a performance perspective and from a MIMO perspective.
How does one relate to another? :) You can use 20MHz channel and still use MIMO. All those spatial streams operate in the same channel(s).
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:36 pm

How does one relate to another? :) You can use 20MHz channel and still use MIMO. All those spatial streams operate in the same channel(s).
I did not state that you could not use 20MHz channel with MIMO .... I did state that if you want PERFORMANCE you must use 40Mhz ... performance means speed..... 20Mhz channel width MIMO will not deliver performance in the same way that 40Mhz channel width will.
 
heidarren
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:56 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:43 pm

How does one relate to another? :) You can use 20MHz channel and still use MIMO. All those spatial streams operate in the same channel(s).
I did not state that you could not use 20MHz channel with MIMO .... I did state that if you want PERFORMANCE you must use 40Mhz ... performance means speed..... 20Mhz channel width MIMO will not deliver performance in the same way that 40Mhz channel width will.
Only if you living in jungle, Apple limits all their iOS devices to ONLY use 20MHz in 802.11n for reason.
 
andriys
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:46 pm

I did not state that you could not use 20MHz channel with MIMO ....
You did, actually. Let me cite you:

To get performance the MIMO client and MIMO server must talk MIMO and that means at minimum 2 x 2 streams .... not 1x2 or 1x1 ... but 2x2 .... in MikroTik speak streams = chains. so if you want better performance utilizing 2.4Ghx you must use channel width of 40Mhz assuming that your wireless client is MIMO capable.

And in reality MIMO is in no way related to channel width. In ideal conditions, of course, twice as wide channel will bring you about twice as much better performance. In real life, however, that also means twice as much interference, and so in crowded environment you will rarely get any benefit from using 40MHz channels in 2GHz band.

And by the way, that OFDM with spatial multiplexing, aka MIMO, was invented several decades ago, and I'm not sure the companies you've mention even existed back then. It's just modern electronics became fast and cheap enough for the technology to finally reach the consumer market.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:46 pm

No I'm using iperf and speedtest tools also (like speedtest.net and fast.com)
But I don't get you. What is different in real life? I have a lot of local devices which I can and have to access so these has nothing to do with WAN speed (copying files locally for example).
Also if you have a slow WAN, how could you test your local networks true speed?
Ok, got it, You have also local network traffic. But anyway Your WAN isn't low?
WAN is 500Mbps truly. On wired I can easily get 510Mbps...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:48 pm

How does one relate to another? :) You can use 20MHz channel and still use MIMO. All those spatial streams operate in the same channel(s).
I did not state that you could not use 20MHz channel with MIMO .... I did state that if you want PERFORMANCE you must use 40Mhz ... performance means speed..... 20Mhz channel width MIMO will not deliver performance in the same way that 40Mhz channel width will.
This does not seems to be true. Changing to 20MHz on 2.4GHz improved the speed greatly. Yes the theoretical speed is halved, but in real world, I can get 5x better speeds on every device...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:49 pm


Around 10m away from the router, same room
Have You made tests next to the router? As if You can't get decent speed next to the router, then the router is just bad and no matter You adjust, speed won't get better.

But if next to the router speed is good, then adjusting router place, antennas etc, may help signal quality 10 m away.
I don't think sitting 10cm from the router helps in any way. If it is configured incorrectly it will work incorrectly there also. If you have interference, you can have interference there also..
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 2:56 pm

I for ONE am very impressed with @bpwl contribution .... certainly provides much to contemplate especially if YOU are a GEEK :-)

I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade but wireless TODAY wireless is MIMO centric assuming that all devices are MIMO capable [N, AC, AX and 6E] ... so my contribution here is to state that 2.4Ghz 20Mhz channel width is absolutely wrong WRONG wrong from a performance perspective and from a MIMO perspective. To get performance the MIMO client and MIMO server must talk MIMO and that means at minimum 2 x 2 streams .... not 1x2 or 1x1 ... but 2x2 .... in MikroTik speak streams = chains. so if you want better performance utilizing 2.4Ghx you must use channel width of 40Mhz assuming that your wireless client is MIMO capable. If you have a mix of b, c, a wireless clients then 40Mhz channel width will have negative impact on performance and connectivity --- so the only solution from a performance perspective is to get rid of you non-MIMO wireless clients, Performance on the 5Ghz MIMO a channel width of 80Mhz is needed This ends my contribution :-) Nope not planning on going deeper --- want more info LEARN about MIMO especially True MIMO invented by Airgo Networks now owned by Qualcomm,

BTW, Many products today provide an AI engine that automatically TUNES your wireless server for the very best optimum settings to deliver PERFORMANCE to wireless clients .... and they work remarkably well .... Like Ubiquity Controllers starting with version 5.12.66-13102-1, ALL Netgear MESH systems under the RBK series ...as a small example. Perhaps in the not to distant future MikroTik will also have a AI engine
Don't confuse bandwidth with MIMO please.

In Mikrotik terms MCS14 is 2x2 at MCS7, this can be at 20MHz or at 40 MHz.

MAX Interface rate for 20 MHz single spatial stream is 72.2 Mbps
MAX interface rate for 40 MHz single spatial stream (1x1) is 150 Mbps
MAX interface rate for 20 MHz dual spatial stream (2x2) is 144.4 Mbps (you need to have 2 chains active)
MAX interface rate for 40 MHZ dual spatial stream (2x2) is 300 Mbps

MIMO has nothing to do with bandwidth. You can have 2x2 at 20 MHz bandwidth. That is actually what you use in most cases in the world.
40 MHz is using 2 of the 3 possible non-interfering channels , eg 1+6 or 6+11. If you use other channels like 4, you will interfere with everyone in the 2.4GHz allowed band.
In a crowded environment it is very difficult to find a free spectrum range that is 40 MHz wide in the 2.4 band. If you have one, use it!
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:01 pm


This does not seems to be true. Changing to 20MHz on 2.4GHz improved the speed greatly. Yes the theoretical speed is halved, but in real world, I can get 5x better speeds on every device...
This seems work in some conditions only, at least for me the 20/40 Ce gives better speed than 20 only.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:03 pm


Around 10m away from the router, same room
Have You made tests next to the router? As if You can't get decent speed next to the router, then the router is just bad and no matter You adjust, speed won't get better.

But if next to the router speed is good, then adjusting router place, antennas etc, may help signal quality 10 m away.
If you test next to the router you might saturate the receivers (signal > -25dBm) :-)
 
User avatar
mozerd
Member
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:39 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:03 pm

This does not seems to be true. Changing to 20MHz on 2.4GHz improved the speed greatly. Yes the theoretical speed is halved, but in real world, I can get 5x better speeds on every device...
If you have lots of competing wireless transmitters in close proximity to your venue ... that means lots of interference ... the way to beat that interference is to add another Radio Transmitter to the mix so that your signals are stronger and closer to your wireless clients .... the way smart people do it is not with an integrated device like you got --- but by adding Access Points and balancing the system internal to your venue -- in that way 40Mhz delivers the speed ... not theoretical speed at all.

That is why I suggested to you to add the Ubiquiti nanoHD THEN you would experience solid MIMO performance.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:05 pm


This does not seems to be true. Changing to 20MHz on 2.4GHz improved the speed greatly. Yes the theoretical speed is halved, but in real world, I can get 5x better speeds on every device...
This seems work in some conditions only, at least for me the 20/40 Ce gives better speed than 20 only.
That's why tuning never is "copy/paste" of the config from somebody else. Tuning is all about the local circumstances that are different.
 
andriys
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:07 pm

This seems work in some conditions only, at least for me the 20/40 Ce gives better speed than 20 only.
You wrote in another thread, that you don't have neighbors nearby and that the spectrum is free from other networks at your place. So, of course if does!
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:12 pm


I don't think sitting 10cm from the router helps in any way. If it is configured incorrectly it will work incorrectly there also. If you have interference, you can have interference there also..
I don't think it's miss configured. You are getting less then half of the max speed. With fine tuning You can get and You did get 10% better speed, but that's it. I'm quite sure, that You will never get more out from that device. But You should get at least 90% in any conditions. I'll bet, that if You buy for example Huawei WiFi AX3, which costs 30% of the RB4011 price, but have WiFi6 support, Your WAN will be the bottleneck :)
Last edited by ksuuk on Tue May 12, 2020 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:16 pm

This does not seems to be true. Changing to 20MHz on 2.4GHz improved the speed greatly. Yes the theoretical speed is halved, but in real world, I can get 5x better speeds on every device...
If you have lots of competing wireless transmitters in close proximity to your venue ... that means lots of interference ... the way to beat that interference is to add another Radio Transmitter to the mix so that your signals are stronger and closer to your wireless clients .... the way smart people do it is not with an integrated device like you got --- but by adding Access Points and balancing the system internal to your venue -- in that way 40Mhz delivers the speed ... not theoretical speed at all.

That is why I suggested to you to add the Ubiquiti nanoHD THEN you would experience solid MIMO performance.
That's not the way 802.11 works. If your device hears some other transmitter 20 dB above the noise level (lets say above -86 dBm) then your device will shut up and wait until that ends. Wifi is not about signal strength. It is not shouting in a megaphone. It's a very polite digital world, where everyone follows the rules. If somebody transmits on your channel, then you wait. If you are on interfering adjacent channels, you might both transmit at the same time but your signal will not be received correctly, and both will have to retransmit. If they retransmit at the same time, the story repeats. Selfish AI algoritmes put there channel somewhere in the middle and interfere with everyone around that sticks to 1,6 or 11. Devices above the legal TX power can be confiscated. You are only disturbing your neighborgs.
https://www.metageek.com/training/resou ... -6-11.html
In 5 GHz your device might even show up in the weather radar images. They will come and find you ... .
Last edited by bpwl on Tue May 12, 2020 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:28 pm


I don't think sitting 10cm from the router helps in any way. If it is configured incorrectly it will work incorrectly there also. If you have interference, you can have interference there also..
I don't think it's miss configured. You are getting less then half of the max speed. With fine tuning You can get and You did get 10% better speed, but that's it. I'm quite sure, that You will never get more out from that device. But You should get at least 90% in any conditions. I'll bet, that if You buy for example Huawei WiFi AX3, which costs 30% of the RB4011 price, but have WiFi6 support, Your WAN will be the bottleneck :)
You might be right. That's why I haven't bought a Mikrotik router until now, because they did not had a all-in-one router with 802.11ac capabilities, though I knew Mikrotik for a long time.
And yes it might deliver better speeds through Wi-Fi because it is newer, thought none of my devices support Wi-Fi 6. But then I will be there again with a freakin cheap router where I could not even add a normal Firewall rule or open up as many ports as I would want. Also I would not be able to use VLANs for seperated networks, etc...
So as I said before, I did not bought this router because I only wanted to achieve 1Gbps Wi-Fi speed...
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 3:48 pm


So as I said before, I did not bought this router because I only wanted to achieve 1Gbps Wi-Fi speed...
But You started this thread because of the bad Wifi. :)

Anyway, for all that You need (except WiFi), Mikrotik is perfect. I had RB750GL + Engenius accesspoints working fine in many years. So now You can tune and tune and tune WiFi and if needed (of if You have enough of tuning) add extra accespoint and be happy.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 4:30 pm


So as I said before, I did not bought this router because I only wanted to achieve 1Gbps Wi-Fi speed...
But You started this thread because of the bad Wifi. :)

Anyway, for all that You need (except WiFi), Mikrotik is perfect. I had RB750GL + Engenius accesspoints working fine in many years. So now You can tune and tune and tune WiFi and if needed (of if You have enough of tuning) add extra accespoint and be happy.
I have started it, because I thought that my knowledge is so little in terms of Wireless networks, that maybe I just messed up something and I didn't wanted to complain about this.
This is not related to the topic, but I also going to do a remodeling of the flat, and I want to wire it up with Ethernet in every room, so I could connect everything wired which supports it, removing so many devices from Wi-Fi, plus achiving true max speed. That's another thing why I bought this router, to have enough ports for this and maybe I just need 1 more switch, not several ones or these huge 16 port switches...

The next I will try: move a router a little bit (I have moved the antennas a bit) and maybe try 40MHz on 5GHz as well. It might also there to minimize the interference...
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 5:53 pm

Right now:
Channel selection: 5500 MHz
TX-power (via antenna gain): Current TX Power: Default - Antenna Gain 3dBi
Bandwidth (40 or 80?): 20/40/80XXX
So far so good. Channel is OK TX power and 80 MHz will do in this clean environment .Ceee would be more specific than XXXX.
Interference is probably own interference by distortion after reflection on the wall or furniture.
The second SIID on that channel is indeed your own guest network, and will gracefully co-exist with the main SSID. No problem here.

Don't forget to copy the wireless "registration" "detail view" of your testlink, as baseline information. (To see what changes with the next steps.).
Number of chains used (all 4 or 3 or 2?): All 4 chains are used on TX and RX as well.
Max MCS rate (per chain): I could not find this setting anywhere...
hw-retries:
There are 3 tabs in the wireless WLAN table , visible with "advanced mode".
Data Rates: if changed from default to configured, then the VTH MCS rates allowed for 802.11ac will appear (per chain/antenna).
This will also make the MCS rates under HT MCS clickable.
(0 to 7 for the N speeds, 8-15 for the N speeds in 2x2, 16-23 for the N speeds in 3x3. (4x4 is only via CLI ?)
HT is for selecting the chains/antenna to be used. In the ZA tips&tricks presentation Mikrotik indicated RX chain 0 must always be used.
TX power per antenna will (should) rise a bit when going to 2 transmit chains instead of 4

I don't know what is the impact of "If the client does not support Extended NSS and can only perform 2x2 transmission, set "vht-supported-mcs=mcs0-9,mcs0-9,none"
compared to disabling TX on chain 3 and 4)
"Registered" data could tell what happens to received signal at the router. (As the other end is not a Mikrotik, you do not see in registered what the device received signal strenght is.
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 5:56 pm


You wrote in another thread, that you don't have neighbors nearby and that the spectrum is free from other networks at your place. So, of course if does!
Yes, true, but the real (noticeable) difference for me is disabling route cache and fasttrack, then I can get sometimes almost 50% of the lan speed.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 6:23 pm


You wrote in another thread, that you don't have neighbors nearby and that the spectrum is free from other networks at your place. So, of course if does!
Yes, true, but the real (noticeable) difference for me is disabling route cache and fasttrack, then I can get sometimes almost 50% of the lan speed.
Can you give some guide how you disable these and what exactly?
Thanks!
 
andriys
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 6:31 pm

Those are general routing and firewall facilities, not really related to wireless. In case you are satisfied with the (wired) routing performance, I don't think tweaking those will make any difference for you. But you can try, of course, and see/decide for yourself.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue May 12, 2020 8:38 pm

Right now:
Channel selection: 5500 MHz
TX-power (via antenna gain): Current TX Power: Default - Antenna Gain 3dBi
Bandwidth (40 or 80?): 20/40/80XXX
So far so good. Channel is OK TX power and 80 MHz will do in this clean environment .Ceee would be more specific than XXXX.
Interference is probably own interference by distortion after reflection on the wall or furniture.
The second SIID on that channel is indeed your own guest network, and will gracefully co-exist with the main SSID. No problem here.

Don't forget to copy the wireless "registration" "detail view" of your testlink, as baseline information. (To see what changes with the next steps.).
Number of chains used (all 4 or 3 or 2?): All 4 chains are used on TX and RX as well.
Max MCS rate (per chain): I could not find this setting anywhere...
hw-retries:
There are 3 tabs in the wireless WLAN table , visible with "advanced mode".
Data Rates: if changed from default to configured, then the VTH MCS rates allowed for 802.11ac will appear (per chain/antenna).
This will also make the MCS rates under HT MCS clickable.
(0 to 7 for the N speeds, 8-15 for the N speeds in 2x2, 16-23 for the N speeds in 3x3. (4x4 is only via CLI ?)
HT is for selecting the chains/antenna to be used. In the ZA tips&tricks presentation Mikrotik indicated RX chain 0 must always be used.
TX power per antenna will (should) rise a bit when going to 2 transmit chains instead of 4

I don't know what is the impact of "If the client does not support Extended NSS and can only perform 2x2 transmission, set "vht-supported-mcs=mcs0-9,mcs0-9,none"
compared to disabling TX on chain 3 and 4)
"Registered" data could tell what happens to received signal at the router. (As the other end is not a Mikrotik, you do not see in registered what the device received signal strenght is.
I have moved a router little-bit. Basically rotated it, so that I can see all 4 antennas - I can't explain this, but basically I have rotated 90 degree and moved a little bit so it is not that near to a cabinet.
And I was able to get 330Mbps on my phone around 2m away from the router :) And the speed improved everywhere. However that 330Mbps speed was a peak when I started the speedtest and slowly degraded down until 250Mbps, which is still faster than before. I will try to move the router much further away from the walls and cabinet. Unfortunately it is in a corner + there is a cabinet close it...

I will show the detailed registration later today.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 12:19 am

These 3 devices are used for testing. Totally random screenshot, so I have not adjusted anything.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 12:05 pm

These 3 devices are used for testing. Totally random screenshot, so I have not adjusted anything.
Ok , rkrisi (Kristof) , thanks for sharing. There is normally a constant or even real time monitoring needed, but lets start with a little comment on this registration table.

Elements to consider:
- the ultimate max we can expect from this equipment (AP + clients) is "866.7 Mbps/80 MHz/2S:SGI", this with a stron clean signal in both directions with 256 QAM encoding at VHT MCS 9.
We are operating in the yellow part of this generic 802.11 table: https://d2cpnw0u24fjm4.cloudfront.net/w ... wnload.pdf
Telling us that we should have at least a SNR of 35, what comes with a signal of -51 dBm. (Mikrotik has its own table , and even documents receive sensitivity in the product specs)
Whith that 866Mbps interface rate one can expect around 500 Mbps-600 Mbps net throughput in one dedirection.
- a second element is a mismatch in the RouterOS commands and a 4x4 device. RouterOS GUI only handles 3x3 (ch0,ch1,ch2). Everything in ch3 is missing. Even more, the wiki says if you want to use the 4 chains, leave "Data rates" in default. Only recent change logs did mention 4x4 support through CLI.

Just about your table, the observation learns something (but of course here the location and orientation, and the numbers on the client devices are missing). Also missing is the rate of variation of those numbers. I thought I found a tool to log this over time, but lost track of it. There are script to log this in the wiki.

Device 1 : iPhone
-transmit rate selector is at (390 Bbps) HT MCS12/MCS04/16QAM. The selector has dropped till a robust signal (16QAM)
-receive rate is set at (585 Mbps) HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM. This requires a signal of -59 dBm and a SNR ratio of 26, we have a signal of only -70 dBm, coming from the combined ch signals, including ch3. I don't know if the 2 bests are combined, or all 4.
- the retransmits are acceptable (249000/216000) but of course eat away some of the capacity (P-throughput : supposed to be averaged over 5 seconds) 305Mbps

Interpretation: quite good, iPhone is at the end of its wifi range (unless the iPhone is conserving batteries and has reduced its transmit power). The 12% misses make the router drop the MCS rate. An iPhone is normally handheld, and that hand together with the human body is an absorber for wifi signals. Unclear what the signal strength is that the iPhone receives.

Device 2: iPAD
-transmit 585Mbps HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM
-received the same numbers but with a similar signal of -68 dBm but the SNR in the Mikrotik is still good (36 dB). ch3 must have good signal, as the combination of ch0,ch1 and ch2 is very weak.
-retransmits 192000/130000 becoming 30% already. But 5 sec average P-throughput is 508Mbps

Interpretation: similar to iPhone. Stronger (better SNR) but more distorted signal. MCS rate goes higher but has more misses.

Device 3 : computer
-transmit 520 Mbps HT MCS 13/MCS05/64QAM. Looks reasonable but there is something wrong here. (P-throughput only 92 Mbps)
-received strong signal -59 dBm in the range that is considered a good signal. The rate is accordingly 702Mbps what is VHTMCS08/2S/LGI/256QAM. SNR 45 dB. For 256QAM you need a pure signal.
-retransmits 2589000/2143000 as the iPhone

Interpretation.:
This not good. What is going wrong here in the path Mikrotik->computer? The other way is a very good signal. (Computer have a TX power which is much higher than a tablet or smartphone. It also depends on the adaptor setting in the computer) What is the computer receiving? What is it's location compared to iPhone/iPad ? TX and RX paths in the air are supposed to be the same. What causes this poor CCQ of 64 and P-throughput of 92Mbps? The information for the path Mikrotik->computer is in the computer only. (If the computer is replaced with a Mikrotik in station mode, then the registration would also have shown the received TX signal information.

Next steps? Trial and check how those numbers move.
- position of devices, the router placement is very important
- collect wifi information from devices (will also learn if there is room to lower the TX power at the Mikrotik)
- test with 2 chains and with modified TX power at the router (devices also adapt to the announced TX power in the beacons of the Mikrotik)
- check how agressive the TX rate selector is. If it is very aggressive lower the hw_retry=3, and check again
 
WeWiNet
Member
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 1:10 pm

I come late to this thread and might not have read all of this. So my comment might be useless (or not).
Noticed in the config given that you use not all Wifi 802.11 modes in 5G (only n and ac, but not a)
I gave this advice as well on 2.4G in other threads, this something not to be done if you want to have
correct performance over range for all kind of clients.
Even if you think you don't need "a" rates, they might be used by the AP in situations were you would not expect
them to be used.
If AP is not allowed to use them, your connection breaks up or you see packet loss (reduced speed).

So go with all modes, and uses specific modulation settings only for fixed setup.
WeWiNet

**
MTCNA
hapac2, map, hap-lite, ltap-mini, RB4011 (good!), Audience (better) :-) !!!
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 2:11 pm

I come late to this thread and might not have read all of this. So my comment might be useless (or not).
Noticed in the config given that you use not all Wifi 802.11 modes in 5G (only n and ac, but not a)
I gave this advice as well on 2.4G in other threads, this something not to be done if you want to have
correct performance over range for all kind of clients.
Even if you think you don't need "a" rates, they might be used by the AP in situations were you would not expect
them to be used.
If AP is not allowed to use them, your connection breaks up or you see packet loss (reduced speed).

So go with all modes, and uses specific modulation settings only for fixed setup.
I fully agree that you must let 802.11 do its downrate thing. Wifi works, it almost always works, it will slow down until it works. (Unless you disabled the lower rates, what makes wifi fail instead of going slower)

But I would not consider using "a" here (nor g in europe, and there certainly not b). the reason for my consideration is that n goes as low in encoding as a and g do. (6.5 Mbps) And n is compatible with g and a devices.
http://mcsindex.com/

And then there is information like this :https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html
"Coexistence with 802.11 a/b/g/n: For an 80 MHz 802.11ac channel to properly coexist with older 20 MHz radios operating within the channel, there is a 'request to send' and 'clear to send' exchange before each real message is sent. And that slows everything down."
I don't know when this kicks in. For a "b" device its enough that a foreign "b" device sends out its probes to discover the reachable AP's., even if its not allowed to associate with the network.

Very interesting text is here/ recommended reading : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009 (it handles the discussion on channel bandwidth and co-existance with a as well.)
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 4:35 pm

These 3 devices are used for testing. Totally random screenshot, so I have not adjusted anything.
Ok , rkrisi (Kristof) , thanks for sharing. There is normally a constant or even real time monitoring needed, but lets start with a little comment on this registration table.

Elements to consider:
- the ultimate max we can expect from this equipment (AP + clients) is "866.7 Mbps/80 MHz/2S:SGI", this with a stron clean signal in both directions with 256 QAM encoding at VHT MCS 9.
We are operating in the yellow part of this generic 802.11 table: https://d2cpnw0u24fjm4.cloudfront.net/w ... wnload.pdf
Telling us that we should have at least a SNR of 35, what comes with a signal of -51 dBm. (Mikrotik has its own table , and even documents receive sensitivity in the product specs)
Whith that 866Mbps interface rate one can expect around 500 Mbps-600 Mbps net throughput in one dedirection.
- a second element is a mismatch in the RouterOS commands and a 4x4 device. RouterOS GUI only handles 3x3 (ch0,ch1,ch2). Everything in ch3 is missing. Even more, the wiki says if you want to use the 4 chains, leave "Data rates" in default. Only recent change logs did mention 4x4 support through CLI.

Just about your table, the observation learns something (but of course here the location and orientation, and the numbers on the client devices are missing). Also missing is the rate of variation of those numbers. I thought I found a tool to log this over time, but lost track of it. There are script to log this in the wiki.

Device 1 : iPhone
-transmit rate selector is at (390 Bbps) HT MCS12/MCS04/16QAM. The selector has dropped till a robust signal (16QAM)
-receive rate is set at (585 Mbps) HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM. This requires a signal of -59 dBm and a SNR ratio of 26, we have a signal of only -70 dBm, coming from the combined ch signals, including ch3. I don't know if the 2 bests are combined, or all 4.
- the retransmits are acceptable (249000/216000) but of course eat away some of the capacity (P-throughput : supposed to be averaged over 5 seconds) 305Mbps

Interpretation: quite good, iPhone is at the end of its wifi range (unless the iPhone is conserving batteries and has reduced its transmit power). The 12% misses make the router drop the MCS rate. An iPhone is normally handheld, and that hand together with the human body is an absorber for wifi signals. Unclear what the signal strength is that the iPhone receives.

Device 2: iPAD
-transmit 585Mbps HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM
-received the same numbers but with a similar signal of -68 dBm but the SNR in the Mikrotik is still good (36 dB). ch3 must have good signal, as the combination of ch0,ch1 and ch2 is very weak.
-retransmits 192000/130000 becoming 30% already. But 5 sec average P-throughput is 508Mbps

Interpretation: similar to iPhone. Stronger (better SNR) but more distorted signal. MCS rate goes higher but has more misses.

Device 3 : computer
-transmit 520 Mbps HT MCS 13/MCS05/64QAM. Looks reasonable but there is something wrong here. (P-throughput only 92 Mbps)
-received strong signal -59 dBm in the range that is considered a good signal. The rate is accordingly 702Mbps what is VHTMCS08/2S/LGI/256QAM. SNR 45 dB. For 256QAM you need a pure signal.
-retransmits 2589000/2143000 as the iPhone

Interpretation.:
This not good. What is going wrong here in the path Mikrotik->computer? The other way is a very good signal. (Computer have a TX power which is much higher than a tablet or smartphone. It also depends on the adaptor setting in the computer) What is the computer receiving? What is it's location compared to iPhone/iPad ? TX and RX paths in the air are supposed to be the same. What causes this poor CCQ of 64 and P-throughput of 92Mbps? The information for the path Mikrotik->computer is in the computer only. (If the computer is replaced with a Mikrotik in station mode, then the registration would also have shown the received TX signal information.

Next steps? Trial and check how those numbers move.
- position of devices, the router placement is very important
- collect wifi information from devices (will also learn if there is room to lower the TX power at the Mikrotik)
- test with 2 chains and with modified TX power at the router (devices also adapt to the announced TX power in the beacons of the Mikrotik)
- check how agressive the TX rate selector is. If it is very aggressive lower the hw_retry=3, and check again
Ok thanks!
I know that only in 80MHz mode the theoretical max is 860Mbps... However I will be happy with the half of that... (My ISP is only 500Mbps and usually handheld Wi-Fi devices use just the internet, not local network).
I don't know what's wrong with the Computer. It is "almost" in clear sight of the router, around 10-15m away from the router, it needs to pass only max 1 wall. The iPad and iPhone was on the table (locked so that's why it drops the rates - I saw that) which is almost 1m away from the computer antennas. However from the table where the phone was, you have a clear sight to the router (I can clearly see that router and nothing crosses this path).

The problem might be which I experienced just today:
The router is located in a corner, as I said, around 1.5m above the ground, and around 20-20 cm from each wall (it is a corner!). Also there is a cabinet next to it which might be a problem.
How I know that: I have an older Mikrotik router also (RB751) acting as a Wi-Fi client, because I have some devices at the other end of the flat which needs internet connection and they only has wired connection, so that I use this old router as a Wi-Fi client.

Today I rotated the router just a little bit (only a few degree and cm) so I might think that this won't affect the performance, but:
The 5GHz performance stayed the same or almost the same on every device, however that AP Client Mikrotik router (which uses 2.4GHz) lost connection, the connection became really instable. CCQ dropped to 30/30% (and yes here I can see both TX/RX CCQ), and I was barely able to connect to it with Winbox. Rotating the router back, just a few degree, CCQ changed back to 70/40%!!
This is not still not the best, but these devices don't need that much speed - they only send a few bytes every minute - so I don't really care. But Winbox works instantly now. Just by rotating this little....
Which why I ask (and I have read this in many places): it is better to place the router in an upper position? I'm able to place the router on the top of that cabinet which is around 2.1m high. I wonder if this will make sense. Lots of article says that you should try to place it as high as you can... Unfortunately, I can't do anything about the corner - but this cabinet is also a little bit further away from the corner. So I might try that.

Regarding the PC speed: I don't know why that happens, checking now, it dropped to 50Mbps. Yesterday I got 210Mbps. I only tried rotating the router as I said, I didn't change anything in the config...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 4:36 pm

I come late to this thread and might not have read all of this. So my comment might be useless (or not).
Noticed in the config given that you use not all Wifi 802.11 modes in 5G (only n and ac, but not a)
I gave this advice as well on 2.4G in other threads, this something not to be done if you want to have
correct performance over range for all kind of clients.
Even if you think you don't need "a" rates, they might be used by the AP in situations were you would not expect
them to be used.
If AP is not allowed to use them, your connection breaks up or you see packet loss (reduced speed).

So go with all modes, and uses specific modulation settings only for fixed setup.
You are right and I already enabled a/n/ac in 5GHz. I just tried that when I tried to debug what might be wrong here...
But it did not change anything. Enabling a did not made the speed faster or slower.
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 6:16 pm

These 3 devices are used for testing. Totally random screenshot, so I have not adjusted anything.
Ok , rkrisi (Kristof) , thanks for sharing. There is normally a constant or even real time monitoring needed, but lets start with a little comment on this registration table.

Elements to consider:
- the ultimate max we can expect from this equipment (AP + clients) is "866.7 Mbps/80 MHz/2S:SGI", this with a stron clean signal in both directions with 256 QAM encoding at VHT MCS 9.
We are operating in the yellow part of this generic 802.11 table: https://d2cpnw0u24fjm4.cloudfront.net/w ... wnload.pdf
Telling us that we should have at least a SNR of 35, what comes with a signal of -51 dBm. (Mikrotik has its own table , and even documents receive sensitivity in the product specs)
Whith that 866Mbps interface rate one can expect around 500 Mbps-600 Mbps net throughput in one dedirection.
- a second element is a mismatch in the RouterOS commands and a 4x4 device. RouterOS GUI only handles 3x3 (ch0,ch1,ch2). Everything in ch3 is missing. Even more, the wiki says if you want to use the 4 chains, leave "Data rates" in default. Only recent change logs did mention 4x4 support through CLI.

Just about your table, the observation learns something (but of course here the location and orientation, and the numbers on the client devices are missing). Also missing is the rate of variation of those numbers. I thought I found a tool to log this over time, but lost track of it. There are script to log this in the wiki.

Device 1 : iPhone
-transmit rate selector is at (390 Bbps) HT MCS12/MCS04/16QAM. The selector has dropped till a robust signal (16QAM)
-receive rate is set at (585 Mbps) HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM. This requires a signal of -59 dBm and a SNR ratio of 26, we have a signal of only -70 dBm, coming from the combined ch signals, including ch3. I don't know if the 2 bests are combined, or all 4.
- the retransmits are acceptable (249000/216000) but of course eat away some of the capacity (P-throughput : supposed to be averaged over 5 seconds) 305Mbps

Interpretation: quite good, iPhone is at the end of its wifi range (unless the iPhone is conserving batteries and has reduced its transmit power). The 12% misses make the router drop the MCS rate. An iPhone is normally handheld, and that hand together with the human body is an absorber for wifi signals. Unclear what the signal strength is that the iPhone receives.

Device 2: iPAD
-transmit 585Mbps HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM
-received the same numbers but with a similar signal of -68 dBm but the SNR in the Mikrotik is still good (36 dB). ch3 must have good signal, as the combination of ch0,ch1 and ch2 is very weak.
-retransmits 192000/130000 becoming 30% already. But 5 sec average P-throughput is 508Mbps

Interpretation: similar to iPhone. Stronger (better SNR) but more distorted signal. MCS rate goes higher but has more misses.

Device 3 : computer
-transmit 520 Mbps HT MCS 13/MCS05/64QAM. Looks reasonable but there is something wrong here. (P-throughput only 92 Mbps)
-received strong signal -59 dBm in the range that is considered a good signal. The rate is accordingly 702Mbps what is VHTMCS08/2S/LGI/256QAM. SNR 45 dB. For 256QAM you need a pure signal.
-retransmits 2589000/2143000 as the iPhone

Interpretation.:
This not good. What is going wrong here in the path Mikrotik->computer? The other way is a very good signal. (Computer have a TX power which is much higher than a tablet or smartphone. It also depends on the adaptor setting in the computer) What is the computer receiving? What is it's location compared to iPhone/iPad ? TX and RX paths in the air are supposed to be the same. What causes this poor CCQ of 64 and P-throughput of 92Mbps? The information for the path Mikrotik->computer is in the computer only. (If the computer is replaced with a Mikrotik in station mode, then the registration would also have shown the received TX signal information.

Next steps? Trial and check how those numbers move.
- position of devices, the router placement is very important
- collect wifi information from devices (will also learn if there is room to lower the TX power at the Mikrotik)
- test with 2 chains and with modified TX power at the router (devices also adapt to the announced TX power in the beacons of the Mikrotik)
- check how agressive the TX rate selector is. If it is very aggressive lower the hw_retry=3, and check again
Ok thanks!
I know that only in 80MHz mode the theoretical max is 860Mbps... However I will be happy with the half of that... (My ISP is only 500Mbps and usually handheld Wi-Fi devices use just the internet, not local network).
I don't know what's wrong with the Computer. It is "almost" in clear sight of the router, around 10-15m away from the router, it needs to pass only max 1 wall. The iPad and iPhone was on the table (locked so that's why it drops the rates - I saw that) which is almost 1m away from the computer antennas. However from the table where the phone was, you have a clear sight to the router (I can clearly see that router and nothing crosses this path).

The problem might be which I experienced just today:
The router is located in a corner, as I said, around 1.5m above the ground, and around 20-20 cm from each wall (it is a corner!). Also there is a cabinet next to it which might be a problem.
How I know that: I have an older Mikrotik router also (RB751) acting as a Wi-Fi client, because I have some devices at the other end of the flat which needs internet connection and they only has wired connection, so that I use this old router as a Wi-Fi client.

Today I rotated the router just a little bit (only a few degree and cm) so I might think that this won't affect the performance, but:
The 5GHz performance stayed the same or almost the same on every device, however that AP Client Mikrotik router (which uses 2.4GHz) lost connection, the connection became really instable. CCQ dropped to 30/30% (and yes here I can see both TX/RX CCQ), and I was barely able to connect to it with Winbox. Rotating the router back, just a few degree, CCQ changed back to 70/40%!!
This is not still not the best, but these devices don't need that much speed - they only send a few bytes every minute - so I don't really care. But Winbox works instantly now. Just by rotating this little....
Which why I ask (and I have read this in many places): it is better to place the router in an upper position? I'm able to place the router on the top of that cabinet which is around 2.1m high. I wonder if this will make sense. Lots of article says that you should try to place it as high as you can... Unfortunately, I can't do anything about the corner - but this cabinet is also a little bit further away from the corner. So I might try that.

Regarding the PC speed: I don't know why that happens, checking now, it dropped to 50Mbps. Yesterday I got 210Mbps. I only tried rotating the router as I said, I didn't change anything in the config...
Do I understand well that that RB751 is close to the RB4011? That can probably be a problem, even if they are on total different frequencies. Electronic boards with radio's on do emit a lot at different frequencies. Even the passive antenna will work as Yagi antenna for the RB4011. Placing the RB4011 on top of that cabinet is a great idea. It's further away from anything else there.

That corner is not a lucky thing, it will surely disturb the wifi signal.. But you have no other choice That RB751 as station is a transmitter like an AP (it just does not send out beacons), if you are not using other virtual interfaces as AP (because then it is just an AP also). That RB751 would be a good test device for wifi. The "registration" would also give the remote signal strength in the RB4011. Unfortunatly 2.4 GHz only.

Did you try "snooper" yet? I had a case where a nearby wAP ac appeared in snooper but at phantome frequencies. The wAP ac was only 50 cm from the testing hAP ac2 on the same table. Moving the devices removed the phantom frequency immediatly.

Keep measuring. Even life-measurements when you move or rotate things. If you click on the registration, and open it, the "signal" tab gives even more information.
Most of the Mikrotik quality indicators cannot be trusted if there is not enough traffic. A connection that is not actively used will show bad performance numbers!

https://7signal.com/10-wi-fi-antenna-pl ... -mistakes/
 
santyx32
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:17 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 7:26 pm

Can get up to 450mbps using btest in my hap ac2, this is my config if it helps
/interface wireless security-profiles
set [ find default=yes ] supplicant-identity=MikroTik
add authentication-types=wpa2-psk disable-pmkid=yes eap-methods="" \
    group-key-update=1h mode=dynamic-keys name=main supplicant-identity=""
/interface wireless
set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] amsdu-limit=2048 amsdu-threshold=2048 band=\
    2ghz-b/g/n country="united states" disabled=no distance=indoors frequency=\
    2462 installation=indoor keepalive-frames=disabled mode=ap-bridge \
    multicast-buffering=disabled multicast-helper=disabled security-profile=\
    main ssid=network wireless-protocol=802.11 wps-mode=disabled
set [ find default-name=wlan2 ] amsdu-limit=2048 amsdu-threshold=2048 band=\
    5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-Ceee country="united states" \
    disabled=no distance=indoors frequency=5660 installation=indoor \
    keepalive-frames=disabled mode=ap-bridge multicast-buffering=disabled \
    multicast-helper=disabled security-profile=main ssid=network-5g \
    wireless-protocol=802.11 wps-mode=disabled
PD: I live in front of some old buildings with lots of WISP and 4G antennas, the non-DFS spectrum is extremely crowded as 2.4ghz is, so using a free DFS channel helped me
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 8:02 pm

Can get up to 450mbps using btest in my hap ac2, this is my config if it helps
I don't know why, but there is no "one for all good" wifi configuration, if even two same type of models, with same configuration, acts totally different way, not to mention of different models.

Yea, I know, now some will write a long list of all kind reasons (different environment, different clients, different users, different weather etc), but somehow other brands do not have such problems. Maybe Mikrotik builds hardware from disqualified parts and as their tolerance is very high, then users must tune and tune to achieve the basic conditions, when some other brands almost does not include any tuning options and still they work well and perform better.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 9:24 pm

These 3 devices are used for testing. Totally random screenshot, so I have not adjusted anything.
Ok , rkrisi (Kristof) , thanks for sharing. There is normally a constant or even real time monitoring needed, but lets start with a little comment on this registration table.

Elements to consider:
- the ultimate max we can expect from this equipment (AP + clients) is "866.7 Mbps/80 MHz/2S:SGI", this with a stron clean signal in both directions with 256 QAM encoding at VHT MCS 9.
We are operating in the yellow part of this generic 802.11 table: https://d2cpnw0u24fjm4.cloudfront.net/w ... wnload.pdf
Telling us that we should have at least a SNR of 35, what comes with a signal of -51 dBm. (Mikrotik has its own table , and even documents receive sensitivity in the product specs)
Whith that 866Mbps interface rate one can expect around 500 Mbps-600 Mbps net throughput in one dedirection.
- a second element is a mismatch in the RouterOS commands and a 4x4 device. RouterOS GUI only handles 3x3 (ch0,ch1,ch2). Everything in ch3 is missing. Even more, the wiki says if you want to use the 4 chains, leave "Data rates" in default. Only recent change logs did mention 4x4 support through CLI.

Just about your table, the observation learns something (but of course here the location and orientation, and the numbers on the client devices are missing). Also missing is the rate of variation of those numbers. I thought I found a tool to log this over time, but lost track of it. There are script to log this in the wiki.

Device 1 : iPhone
-transmit rate selector is at (390 Bbps) HT MCS12/MCS04/16QAM. The selector has dropped till a robust signal (16QAM)
-receive rate is set at (585 Mbps) HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM. This requires a signal of -59 dBm and a SNR ratio of 26, we have a signal of only -70 dBm, coming from the combined ch signals, including ch3. I don't know if the 2 bests are combined, or all 4.
- the retransmits are acceptable (249000/216000) but of course eat away some of the capacity (P-throughput : supposed to be averaged over 5 seconds) 305Mbps

Interpretation: quite good, iPhone is at the end of its wifi range (unless the iPhone is conserving batteries and has reduced its transmit power). The 12% misses make the router drop the MCS rate. An iPhone is normally handheld, and that hand together with the human body is an absorber for wifi signals. Unclear what the signal strength is that the iPhone receives.

Device 2: iPAD
-transmit 585Mbps HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM
-received the same numbers but with a similar signal of -68 dBm but the SNR in the Mikrotik is still good (36 dB). ch3 must have good signal, as the combination of ch0,ch1 and ch2 is very weak.
-retransmits 192000/130000 becoming 30% already. But 5 sec average P-throughput is 508Mbps

Interpretation: similar to iPhone. Stronger (better SNR) but more distorted signal. MCS rate goes higher but has more misses.

Device 3 : computer
-transmit 520 Mbps HT MCS 13/MCS05/64QAM. Looks reasonable but there is something wrong here. (P-throughput only 92 Mbps)
-received strong signal -59 dBm in the range that is considered a good signal. The rate is accordingly 702Mbps what is VHTMCS08/2S/LGI/256QAM. SNR 45 dB. For 256QAM you need a pure signal.
-retransmits 2589000/2143000 as the iPhone

Interpretation.:
This not good. What is going wrong here in the path Mikrotik->computer? The other way is a very good signal. (Computer have a TX power which is much higher than a tablet or smartphone. It also depends on the adaptor setting in the computer) What is the computer receiving? What is it's location compared to iPhone/iPad ? TX and RX paths in the air are supposed to be the same. What causes this poor CCQ of 64 and P-throughput of 92Mbps? The information for the path Mikrotik->computer is in the computer only. (If the computer is replaced with a Mikrotik in station mode, then the registration would also have shown the received TX signal information.

Next steps? Trial and check how those numbers move.
- position of devices, the router placement is very important
- collect wifi information from devices (will also learn if there is room to lower the TX power at the Mikrotik)
- test with 2 chains and with modified TX power at the router (devices also adapt to the announced TX power in the beacons of the Mikrotik)
- check how agressive the TX rate selector is. If it is very aggressive lower the hw_retry=3, and check again
Ok thanks!
I know that only in 80MHz mode the theoretical max is 860Mbps... However I will be happy with the half of that... (My ISP is only 500Mbps and usually handheld Wi-Fi devices use just the internet, not local network).
I don't know what's wrong with the Computer. It is "almost" in clear sight of the router, around 10-15m away from the router, it needs to pass only max 1 wall. The iPad and iPhone was on the table (locked so that's why it drops the rates - I saw that) which is almost 1m away from the computer antennas. However from the table where the phone was, you have a clear sight to the router (I can clearly see that router and nothing crosses this path).

The problem might be which I experienced just today:
The router is located in a corner, as I said, around 1.5m above the ground, and around 20-20 cm from each wall (it is a corner!). Also there is a cabinet next to it which might be a problem.
How I know that: I have an older Mikrotik router also (RB751) acting as a Wi-Fi client, because I have some devices at the other end of the flat which needs internet connection and they only has wired connection, so that I use this old router as a Wi-Fi client.

Today I rotated the router just a little bit (only a few degree and cm) so I might think that this won't affect the performance, but:
The 5GHz performance stayed the same or almost the same on every device, however that AP Client Mikrotik router (which uses 2.4GHz) lost connection, the connection became really instable. CCQ dropped to 30/30% (and yes here I can see both TX/RX CCQ), and I was barely able to connect to it with Winbox. Rotating the router back, just a few degree, CCQ changed back to 70/40%!!
This is not still not the best, but these devices don't need that much speed - they only send a few bytes every minute - so I don't really care. But Winbox works instantly now. Just by rotating this little....
Which why I ask (and I have read this in many places): it is better to place the router in an upper position? I'm able to place the router on the top of that cabinet which is around 2.1m high. I wonder if this will make sense. Lots of article says that you should try to place it as high as you can... Unfortunately, I can't do anything about the corner - but this cabinet is also a little bit further away from the corner. So I might try that.

Regarding the PC speed: I don't know why that happens, checking now, it dropped to 50Mbps. Yesterday I got 210Mbps. I only tried rotating the router as I said, I didn't change anything in the config...
Do I understand well that that RB751 is close to the RB4011? That can probably be a problem, even if they are on total different frequencies. Electronic boards with radio's on do emit a lot at different frequencies. Even the passive antenna will work as Yagi antenna for the RB4011. Placing the RB4011 on top of that cabinet is a great idea. It's further away from anything else there.

That corner is not a lucky thing, it will surely disturb the wifi signal.. But you have no other choice That RB751 as station is a transmitter like an AP (it just does not send out beacons), if you are not using other virtual interfaces as AP (because then it is just an AP also). That RB751 would be a good test device for wifi. The "registration" would also give the remote signal strength in the RB4011. Unfortunatly 2.4 GHz only.

Did you try "snooper" yet? I had a case where a nearby wAP ac appeared in snooper but at phantome frequencies. The wAP ac was only 50 cm from the testing hAP ac2 on the same table. Moving the devices removed the phantom frequency immediatly.

Keep measuring. Even life-measurements when you move or rotate things. If you click on the registration, and open it, the "signal" tab gives even more information.
Most of the Mikrotik quality indicators cannot be trusted if there is not enough traffic. A connection that is not actively used will show bad performance numbers!

https://7signal.com/10-wi-fi-antenna-pl ... -mistakes/
Ok thanks! I was able to solve the P throughput problem on my PC, I have relocated its antennas. Now I have P Throughput around 350000. I think this seems much better. TX rate 390Mbps (almost same) RX rate 702Mbps. Signal is still -61 dB
True throughput still around 210Mbps.

No, the RB751 is around halfway as my computer (in distance and in direction as well), so it is not that close, also in a different room.
In the weekend I will try to relocate the router (I think this might be the root problem, because even small changes of the router location at that point causes significant differences).
Also I will try Snooper and see if I can understand something better.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed May 13, 2020 9:26 pm

Can get up to 450mbps using btest in my hap ac2, this is my config if it helps
/interface wireless security-profiles
set [ find default=yes ] supplicant-identity=MikroTik
add authentication-types=wpa2-psk disable-pmkid=yes eap-methods="" \
    group-key-update=1h mode=dynamic-keys name=main supplicant-identity=""
/interface wireless
set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] amsdu-limit=2048 amsdu-threshold=2048 band=\
    2ghz-b/g/n country="united states" disabled=no distance=indoors frequency=\
    2462 installation=indoor keepalive-frames=disabled mode=ap-bridge \
    multicast-buffering=disabled multicast-helper=disabled security-profile=\
    main ssid=network wireless-protocol=802.11 wps-mode=disabled
set [ find default-name=wlan2 ] amsdu-limit=2048 amsdu-threshold=2048 band=\
    5ghz-a/n/ac channel-width=20/40/80mhz-Ceee country="united states" \
    disabled=no distance=indoors frequency=5660 installation=indoor \
    keepalive-frames=disabled mode=ap-bridge multicast-buffering=disabled \
    multicast-helper=disabled security-profile=main ssid=network-5g \
    wireless-protocol=802.11 wps-mode=disabled
PD: I live in front of some old buildings with lots of WISP and 4G antennas, the non-DFS spectrum is extremely crowded as 2.4ghz is, so using a free DFS channel helped me
Thanks! I also think there is no copy paste solution, but I have some things which is really different from yours. And I don't know if it will make any sense.
Like amsdu-limit/threshold, multicast-helper. buffering, etc... Why did you set those?
 
ksuuk
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Thu May 14, 2020 9:38 am


Like amsdu-limit/threshold, multicast-helper. buffering, etc... Why did you set those?
There is no clear answer, seems it helps in some cases stability and some clients (ios) connection, for me amsdu 2048 made things worst. For example my current config is:
set [ find default-name=wlan1 ] adaptive-noise-immunity=ap-and-client-mode band=2ghz-g/n basic-rates-a/g=12Mbps,24Mbps basic-rates-b="" channel-width=20/40mhz-Ce country=no_country_set disabled=no \
    distance=indoors frequency=2437 frequency-mode=manual-txpower hw-retries=5 installation=indoor keepalive-frames=disabled max-station-count=300 mode=ap-bridge multicast-buffering=disabled \
    multicast-helper=disabled rate-set=configured security-profile=xb ssid=xb supported-rates-a/g=12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps,36Mbps,48Mbps,54Mbps supported-rates-b="" wireless-protocol=802.11 wmm-support=\
    enabled wps-mode=disabled
set [ find default-name=wlan2 ] adaptive-noise-immunity=ap-and-client-mode antenna-gain=1 band=5ghz-a/n/ac basic-rates-a/g=12Mbps,24Mbps channel-width=20/40/80mhz-Ceee country=no_country_set \
    disabled=no distance=indoors frequency-mode=manual-txpower installation=indoor keepalive-frames=disabled max-station-count=300 mode=ap-bridge multicast-buffering=disabled multicast-helper=\
    disabled rate-set=configured security-profile=xb ssid=xb supported-rates-a/g=12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps,36Mbps,48Mbps,54Mbps wireless-protocol=802.11 wmm-support=enabled wps-mode=disabled
And like I said, strange and unlogic, but true in my case, disabling route cache and fasttrack gives better speed for wifi, however, as my wan is 4G, which speed is much lower then Your, then it may not help You at all. But You never know, until You try.

What makes me wonder is Mikrotik stability problem, for example, yesterday evening I played a bit with amdsu settings and speed was 5 m away kind of 30/30 (yes, it's still pathetic, as wan is about 80/50). Today morning speed was 5/9, tried about 5 times, same result, then via Mikrotik app I opened same amdsu setting, there was 8192, deleted last octet, inserted again and saved (so actually I saved config without any actual change) and speed was again 25/25.

What is going on? Does Mikrotik fall into some standby mode or what?
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sat May 16, 2020 3:16 am

These 3 devices are used for testing. Totally random screenshot, so I have not adjusted anything.
Ok , rkrisi (Kristof) , thanks for sharing. There is normally a constant or even real time monitoring needed, but lets start with a little comment on this registration table.

Elements to consider:
- the ultimate max we can expect from this equipment (AP + clients) is "866.7 Mbps/80 MHz/2S:SGI", this with a stron clean signal in both directions with 256 QAM encoding at VHT MCS 9.
We are operating in the yellow part of this generic 802.11 table: https://d2cpnw0u24fjm4.cloudfront.net/w ... wnload.pdf
Telling us that we should have at least a SNR of 35, what comes with a signal of -51 dBm. (Mikrotik has its own table , and even documents receive sensitivity in the product specs)
Whith that 866Mbps interface rate one can expect around 500 Mbps-600 Mbps net throughput in one dedirection.
- a second element is a mismatch in the RouterOS commands and a 4x4 device. RouterOS GUI only handles 3x3 (ch0,ch1,ch2). Everything in ch3 is missing. Even more, the wiki says if you want to use the 4 chains, leave "Data rates" in default. Only recent change logs did mention 4x4 support through CLI.

Just about your table, the observation learns something (but of course here the location and orientation, and the numbers on the client devices are missing). Also missing is the rate of variation of those numbers. I thought I found a tool to log this over time, but lost track of it. There are script to log this in the wiki.

Device 1 : iPhone
-transmit rate selector is at (390 Bbps) HT MCS12/MCS04/16QAM. The selector has dropped till a robust signal (16QAM)
-receive rate is set at (585 Mbps) HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM. This requires a signal of -59 dBm and a SNR ratio of 26, we have a signal of only -70 dBm, coming from the combined ch signals, including ch3. I don't know if the 2 bests are combined, or all 4.
- the retransmits are acceptable (249000/216000) but of course eat away some of the capacity (P-throughput : supposed to be averaged over 5 seconds) 305Mbps

Interpretation: quite good, iPhone is at the end of its wifi range (unless the iPhone is conserving batteries and has reduced its transmit power). The 12% misses make the router drop the MCS rate. An iPhone is normally handheld, and that hand together with the human body is an absorber for wifi signals. Unclear what the signal strength is that the iPhone receives.

Device 2: iPAD
-transmit 585Mbps HT MCS14/MCS06/64QAM
-received the same numbers but with a similar signal of -68 dBm but the SNR in the Mikrotik is still good (36 dB). ch3 must have good signal, as the combination of ch0,ch1 and ch2 is very weak.
-retransmits 192000/130000 becoming 30% already. But 5 sec average P-throughput is 508Mbps

Interpretation: similar to iPhone. Stronger (better SNR) but more distorted signal. MCS rate goes higher but has more misses.

Device 3 : computer
-transmit 520 Mbps HT MCS 13/MCS05/64QAM. Looks reasonable but there is something wrong here. (P-throughput only 92 Mbps)
-received strong signal -59 dBm in the range that is considered a good signal. The rate is accordingly 702Mbps what is VHTMCS08/2S/LGI/256QAM. SNR 45 dB. For 256QAM you need a pure signal.
-retransmits 2589000/2143000 as the iPhone

Interpretation.:
This not good. What is going wrong here in the path Mikrotik->computer? The other way is a very good signal. (Computer have a TX power which is much higher than a tablet or smartphone. It also depends on the adaptor setting in the computer) What is the computer receiving? What is it's location compared to iPhone/iPad ? TX and RX paths in the air are supposed to be the same. What causes this poor CCQ of 64 and P-throughput of 92Mbps? The information for the path Mikrotik->computer is in the computer only. (If the computer is replaced with a Mikrotik in station mode, then the registration would also have shown the received TX signal information.

Next steps? Trial and check how those numbers move.
- position of devices, the router placement is very important
- collect wifi information from devices (will also learn if there is room to lower the TX power at the Mikrotik)
- test with 2 chains and with modified TX power at the router (devices also adapt to the announced TX power in the beacons of the Mikrotik)
- check how agressive the TX rate selector is. If it is very aggressive lower the hw_retry=3, and check again
Ok thanks!
I know that only in 80MHz mode the theoretical max is 860Mbps... However I will be happy with the half of that... (My ISP is only 500Mbps and usually handheld Wi-Fi devices use just the internet, not local network).
I don't know what's wrong with the Computer. It is "almost" in clear sight of the router, around 10-15m away from the router, it needs to pass only max 1 wall. The iPad and iPhone was on the table (locked so that's why it drops the rates - I saw that) which is almost 1m away from the computer antennas. However from the table where the phone was, you have a clear sight to the router (I can clearly see that router and nothing crosses this path).

The problem might be which I experienced just today:
The router is located in a corner, as I said, around 1.5m above the ground, and around 20-20 cm from each wall (it is a corner!). Also there is a cabinet next to it which might be a problem.
How I know that: I have an older Mikrotik router also (RB751) acting as a Wi-Fi client, because I have some devices at the other end of the flat which needs internet connection and they only has wired connection, so that I use this old router as a Wi-Fi client.

Today I rotated the router just a little bit (only a few degree and cm) so I might think that this won't affect the performance, but:
The 5GHz performance stayed the same or almost the same on every device, however that AP Client Mikrotik router (which uses 2.4GHz) lost connection, the connection became really instable. CCQ dropped to 30/30% (and yes here I can see both TX/RX CCQ), and I was barely able to connect to it with Winbox. Rotating the router back, just a few degree, CCQ changed back to 70/40%!!
This is not still not the best, but these devices don't need that much speed - they only send a few bytes every minute - so I don't really care. But Winbox works instantly now. Just by rotating this little....
Which why I ask (and I have read this in many places): it is better to place the router in an upper position? I'm able to place the router on the top of that cabinet which is around 2.1m high. I wonder if this will make sense. Lots of article says that you should try to place it as high as you can... Unfortunately, I can't do anything about the corner - but this cabinet is also a little bit further away from the corner. So I might try that.

Regarding the PC speed: I don't know why that happens, checking now, it dropped to 50Mbps. Yesterday I got 210Mbps. I only tried rotating the router as I said, I didn't change anything in the config...
Do I understand well that that RB751 is close to the RB4011? That can probably be a problem, even if they are on total different frequencies. Electronic boards with radio's on do emit a lot at different frequencies. Even the passive antenna will work as Yagi antenna for the RB4011. Placing the RB4011 on top of that cabinet is a great idea. It's further away from anything else there.

That corner is not a lucky thing, it will surely disturb the wifi signal.. But you have no other choice That RB751 as station is a transmitter like an AP (it just does not send out beacons), if you are not using other virtual interfaces as AP (because then it is just an AP also). That RB751 would be a good test device for wifi. The "registration" would also give the remote signal strength in the RB4011. Unfortunatly 2.4 GHz only.

Did you try "snooper" yet? I had a case where a nearby wAP ac appeared in snooper but at phantome frequencies. The wAP ac was only 50 cm from the testing hAP ac2 on the same table. Moving the devices removed the phantom frequency immediatly.

Keep measuring. Even life-measurements when you move or rotate things. If you click on the registration, and open it, the "signal" tab gives even more information.
Most of the Mikrotik quality indicators cannot be trusted if there is not enough traffic. A connection that is not actively used will show bad performance numbers!

https://7signal.com/10-wi-fi-antenna-pl ... -mistakes/
Now I have tried snooper.
It reported a few channels which don't have any bandwidth at all, I have selected one and I get a slightly better results now. Around 10% better. But still far from what I want.
Next I will try to move the router a little bit...
 
mmbeck
just joined
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:15 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:11 pm

I also did some tests on the RB4011 5 GHz performance this weekend (using ROS 6.47). It looks like it does not like to transmit data. Using iperf3 over the wifi-connection, the RB4011 was able to receive about 300 MBit/s from a 2x2 client (Intel AC7260), but it only managed to send 80 Mbit/s back to the client. Both under almost perfect radio conditions. I also checked the same client's performance on several last-generation 802.11ac wave 1 APs from different manufacturers, and always got better performance.

Connecting two RB4011, standing on the same table, on 5 GHz, it looked that the one in AP mode was really slow in increasing TX rate, while the one acting as station seemed to behave about normal. Running Ping Speed over the 5 GHz link for a few minutes, they finally achieved a decent average speed, but the overall experience in realistic scenarios was not satisfactory.

Hopefully, new drivers will fix this at some point.
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Tue Jun 23, 2020 5:06 pm

I also did some tests on the RB4011 5 GHz performance this weekend (using ROS 6.47). It looks like it does not like to transmit data. Using iperf3 over the wifi-connection, the RB4011 was able to receive about 300 MBit/s from a 2x2 client (Intel AC7260), but it only managed to send 80 Mbit/s back to the client. Both under almost perfect radio conditions. I also checked the same client's performance on several last-generation 802.11ac wave 1 APs from different manufacturers, and always got better performance.

Connecting two RB4011, standing on the same table, on 5 GHz, it looked that the one in AP mode was really slow in increasing TX rate, while the one acting as station seemed to behave about normal. Running Ping Speed over the 5 GHz link for a few minutes, they finally achieved a decent average speed, but the overall experience in realistic scenarios was not satisfactory.

Hopefully, new drivers will fix this at some point.
I'm still on 6.46.6 and I hoped 6.47 will come with some improvements! Anyway thanks for your detailed tests. However I'm still not able to reach even 300Mbps on 5GHz with RB4011.
Which is a shame because a friend of mine bought an hAP ac2 almost the same time when I bought the RB4011 and he gets much better speeds with that one (around 450Mbps down).
I have read that hap ac2 had similar problems before and updates slowly fixed it. I don't know if this is the case with the RB4011 also. Looking at the specs sheets, it seems that besides both router is arm based, nothing else matches between the 2 routers (completely different wifi chips, cpu, etc...). So I just can hope that this will improve over time.
One thing I did not test is moving the router in the house (which is not that easy for me), but I will test it soon. I will be happy if I can get around 300-400Mbps speed...

Also I can somehow confirm you. I only have one RB4011 and sometimes I see when starting a speedtest it start at around 50Mbps and slowly increases for around 210Mbps. This happens 1-2 times out of 10. In other cases the speedtest jumps to around 250Mbps and slowly decreases until 210Mbps...
Once I was able to get around 335Mbps speed, but I don't know why and how... I just tested it randomly (nothing changed) and it jumped to 450Mbps and avaraged around 335Mbps down. However right after starting a new test (same position) I was not able to get more than 250Mbps... So it really fluctuates in speed and I don't know why...
 
WeWiNet
Member
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:26 pm

Setup:
- Near range (2meter) between client and AP
- iperf3 on Android / MacOS
- iperf3 on Rasp4 with Ethernet connected to RB4011
- RB4011 4x4 ROS 6.46.6, reset to default, 20/40/80MHz channel and Wifi security added (to avoid also anyone connecting to the unit)
- Add also the country in Wifi interface to ensure I do testing which actually means something.
- No other ROS changes done.
Any other setup than above might give wrong results... !!!

Average throughput over 30 seconds:
- 520Mbps TCP DL with 3x3 client
- 400Mbps TCP DL with 2x2 client

If you do that test and get lower numbers, then your Wifi environment is crowded (mine is not really in 5Ghz) or your unit is defective...
I guess its rather first one for you...
PS: DFS channels might play or not a role in your country. I often do test in the non-DFS channels but those are the most crowded ones
in urban environment problematic.
WeWiNet

**
MTCNA
hapac2, map, hap-lite, ltap-mini, RB4011 (good!), Audience (better) :-) !!!
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:31 pm

Setup:
- Near range (2meter) between client and AP
- iperf3 on Android / MacOS
- iperf3 on Rasp4 with Ethernet connected to RB4011
- RB4011 4x4 ROS 6.46.6, reset to default, 20/40/80MHz channel and Wifi security added (to avoid also anyone connecting to the unit)
- Add also the country in Wifi interface to ensure I do testing which actually means something.
- No other ROS changes done.
Any other setup than above might give wrong results... !!!

Average throughput over 30 seconds:
- 520Mbps TCP DL with 3x3 client
- 400Mbps TCP DL with 2x2 client

If you do that test and get lower numbers, then your Wifi environment is crowded (mine is not really in 5Ghz) or your unit is defective...
I guess its rather first one for you...
PS: DFS channels might play or not a role in your country. I often do test in the non-DFS channels but those are the most crowded ones
in urban environment problematic.
Did similar tests today. Only I did not reset the config to default on RB4011, but everything is similar. iPerf3 server on Raspberry 4, 2x2 client close to router, I got around 250Mbps speed...
 
WeWiNet
Member
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:21 pm

I implicitly assumed this, but to be sure, I use 80 MHz capable clients.
You can check in the Wireless "registration" tab that they do receive and sent with 80 Mhz
and 2 spatial stream.
WeWiNet

**
MTCNA
hapac2, map, hap-lite, ltap-mini, RB4011 (good!), Audience (better) :-) !!!
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:44 am

I implicitly assumed this, but to be sure, I use 80 MHz capable clients.
You can check in the Wireless "registration" tab that they do receive and sent with 80 Mhz
and 2 spatial stream.
Same clients here (I get around 800Mbps Rx rate 80Mhz/2SP/SGI)
 
WeWiNet
Member
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:55 am

Exactly. AP RX rates I get >1000Mbps with MacPro 3x3 but on AP TX I rarely go over the 800Mbps rates...
So client UL is a but better than DL.
On the 2x2 client I get 800mbps rates on both Rx and Tx.

PS: I keep AMPDU priority as default (only "1" checked). I see bad performance when enabling the others.
I really keep all "Wifi" settings to default.
WeWiNet

**
MTCNA
hapac2, map, hap-lite, ltap-mini, RB4011 (good!), Audience (better) :-) !!!
 
User avatar
bpwl
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:50 am



PS: I keep AMPDU priority as default (only "1" checked). I see bad performance when enabling the others.
A surprising performance hit, bad performance with A-MPDU enabled. These are needed for high performance throughput, by avoiding a lot of overhead.
If most is default (no extra added mangle rules to set the priority) then all is priority 0 , and only the priority zero setting for A-MPDU is used, and that is enabled by default.
Mikrotik default configurations never set the priority.
Aggregation is good for throughput (reduced overhead), its bad for latency and jitter. So it should not be set for priority 6 and 7 (eg. voiceIP)

Expected performance without A-MPDU set: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=161295
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:25 pm

Exactly. AP RX rates I get >1000Mbps with MacPro 3x3 but on AP TX I rarely go over the 800Mbps rates...
So client UL is a but better than DL.
On the 2x2 client I get 800mbps rates on both Rx and Tx.

PS: I keep AMPDU priority as default (only "1" checked). I see bad performance when enabling the others.
I really keep all "Wifi" settings to default.
I did not change AMPDU priorities and I have 0 checked.
So you say you only have "1" checked?

Anyway it seems that the placement of the router is also wrong. Did iperf tests again from different positions, and some place I was able to get around 350Mbps average. So I will try to place it somewhere else first.
What I don't know is that other (online) speedtest tools give really fluctuating performance (which I can sometimes see on iperf also). I know that this is an online service, etc but my Raspberry Pi does speedtest tests on a selected server periodically and it always gives me 500Mbps (through cable) which is my ISP maximum. Same server on a wireless client, max 210Mbps. iPerf sometimes gives 350Mbps if I can place the wireless device correctly...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:41 pm

Well, another observation through longer time... It seems that only speedtest is slow(er), using P2P connection (like torrent client) is much faster, even on my personal computer 15m away from the router.
Speedtest (does not matter which - ookla, fast.com, etc... or even local iperf) usually gives 180-190Mbps here, torrent client can reach up to 36-37MB/s which is almost 300Mbps... Still far away from 500Mbps which I want to achieve, but this is much better. Though testing it like this is much harder, so the question is, why speedtest is slower than other connections?
I don't care if the speedtest is not as fast as the actual connection is, but I might try again different configs, channels, etc and would be great if I could easily test it with a proper tool...
 
WeWiNet
Member
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:24 pm

This is a post about Wifi problem, is your question still Wifi related?

If so you CAN NOT test Wifi connection with Ookla Speedtest. Well you can, but your results do not say anything
about the Wifi, but about the complete system.
So the only way to do this is test Wifi connection between the AP and the client ONLY, and enusre othe elements used
to test support at least max. Wifi speed (or 1Gbps).
Such a test will show you your Wifi performance and then you can start playing around (a bit) with Mikrotik Wifi parameters.
Use Iperf3 is simplest and most reliable solution if you do not have professional Wifi test equipment.

Giving advice based on results obtained via "speedtest" is in my sense point less...

If you talk about ethernet speed, then torrent do use many connections in parallel, which is often better to "load the system" up to its maximum,
versus "single stream" testing. Even compared to ookla "multi" setting, the torrent will have many more connections.
This could be reason you see highest speed with torrent (and they all use UDP, which is simpler/faster than TCP which is used by Speedtest...!!!)
WeWiNet

**
MTCNA
hapac2, map, hap-lite, ltap-mini, RB4011 (good!), Audience (better) :-) !!!
 
anav
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:28 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:21 pm

I see lots of reference to theoretical speeds, 867, 1300, etc............. Remember its marketing hype as those are two way added speeds.
The most ludicrous is the term ooh aahh 1750 which is adding both 2.4 and 5ghz two way streams 450+1300.
Or 867+300 = ~1200 on the packaging.

Consider 1300 for example, its two way tx and thus when we are talking uploading or downloading one should be discussing 650-prop losses as the starting point.
Using the MTUNA certified 1/3 rule any turkey looking to get beyond 433 speed, needs to be bitten by a llama and endure his/her flatulence!! Sure under ideal conditions of no interference and LOS on 5ghz........ but most have competing elements in the home of all sorts from house wiring, type of lighting, appliances etc (worse in apartments) and walls of unknown characteristics. Further as has been noted a mix of wifi devices can seriously impinge upon ideal performance. Obviously 2.4ghz due to progopation will travel further and be more useful over a longer range than 5ghz. In fact 5ghz in a house of any size is useless as a single entity and one needs multiples regardless of vendor. Even a single 2.4 may not be suitable for a larger home.

The frustration is that I can setup a TPlink eap245 plugNplay in the place of a capac, and without any fuss at least equal and surpass the cap performance without any tuning (to be fair it has more chains too). Mind you the capac with routerOS has many other pluses and capabilities that the TP link lacks. The key is for MT to ensure that the wifi is either EASY to configure (comes with a stock setting equivalent to other vendors plugNplay) and what I was hoping for most, was the ability to tailor those settings (one size fits all) to size to my location. However even an expert and generous man bpwl, with great knowledge and patience is still befuddled by the lack of information available. So concur, that MT is not doing a service to its customers at the moment on the wifi side. It seems they have made a half-hearted effort to provide some features but not all and no instructions............ and then gave up on putting any more resources into wifi (well other than into products to sell).
I have stated this before ............ they should hire bpwl on a contract and let him work with the programmers and come up with a useful guide as well as any changes need to the code to ensure that users can optimize their devices.
Last edited by anav on Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'd rather manage rats than software. Follow my advice at your own risk! (Sob & mkx forced me to write that!)
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:22 pm

This is a post about Wifi problem, is your question still Wifi related?

If so you CAN NOT test Wifi connection with Ookla Speedtest. Well you can, but your results do not say anything
about the Wifi, but about the complete system.
So the only way to do this is test Wifi connection between the AP and the client ONLY, and enusre othe elements used
to test support at least max. Wifi speed (or 1Gbps).
Such a test will show you your Wifi performance and then you can start playing around (a bit) with Mikrotik Wifi parameters.
Use Iperf3 is simplest and most reliable solution if you do not have professional Wifi test equipment.

Giving advice based on results obtained via "speedtest" is in my sense point less...

If you talk about ethernet speed, then torrent do use many connections in parallel, which is often better to "load the system" up to its maximum,
versus "single stream" testing. Even compared to ookla "multi" setting, the torrent will have many more connections.
This could be reason you see highest speed with torrent (and they all use UDP, which is simpler/faster than TCP which is used by Speedtest...!!!)
Yes this is still a question about Wi-Fi.
Yes, I know how TCP/UDP works... and I know that you can't trust speedtest on this, but iperf seems to perform worse than it can actually handle. iperf gives around 230 Mbps (local server - the server is connected wired to the router - so no 2 clients using Wi-Fi extensively), which is the same as speedtest...
Wired client can easily use 500 Mbps even on ookla speedtest (which is my max isp speed).
But I slowly accept that I can't get better results with this Wi-Fi chip... also what I can't understand is that using a COMPLETELY empty channel 100-116 gives worse results than it does on 52-64 which always has 1-2 AP on it as well...
 
rkrisi
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Topic Author
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:24 pm

I see lots of reference to theoretical speeds, 867, 1300, etc............. Remember its marketing hype as those are two way added speeds.
The most ludicrous is the term ooh aahh 1750 which is adding both 2.4 and 5ghz two way streams 450+1300.
Or 867+300 = ~1200 on the packaging.

Consider 1300 for example, its two way tx and thus when we are talking uploading or downloading one should be discussing 650-prop losses as the starting point.
Using the MTUNA certified 1/3 rule any turkey looking to get beyond 433 speed, needs to be bitten by a llama and endure his/her flatulence!! Sure under ideal conditions of no interference and LOS on 5ghz........ but most have competing elements in the home of all sorts from house wiring, type of lighting, appliances etc (worse in apartments) and walls of unknown characteristics. Further as has been noted a mix of wifi devices can seriously impinge upon ideal performance. Obviously 2.4ghz due to progopation will travel further and be more useful over a longer range than 5ghz. In fact 5ghz in a house of any size is useless as a single entity and one needs multiples regardless of vendor. Even a single 2.4 may not be suitable for a larger home.

The frustration is that I can setup a TPlink eap245 plugNplay in the place of a capac, and without any fuss at least equal and surpass the cap performance without any tuning (to be fair it has more chains too). Mind you the capac with routerOS has many other pluses and capabilities that the TP link lacks. The key is for MT to ensure that the wifi is either EASY to configure (comes with a stock setting equivalent to other vendors plugNplay) and what I was hoping for most, was the ability to tailor those settings (one size fits all) to size to my location. However even an expert and generous man bpwl, with great knowledge and patience is still befuddled by the lack of information available. So concur, that MT is not doing a service to its customers at the moment on the wifi side.
I have stated this before ............ they should hire bpwl on a contract and let him work with the programmers and come up with a useful guide as well as any changes need to the code to ensure that users can optimize their devices.
Yes I know and I never assumed that I could get even 1Gbps Wi-Fi speed with this device... Though 400-500 Mbps should be there on 5Ghz I think.
 
anav
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:28 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

Re: Wi-Fi performance bad on RB4011 - possible misconfig

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:22 pm

Yes, LOS, no interference from other sources, and using devices equal to the specs of the wifi router you should get around 433 or more.
To expect 400-500 in a noisy environment and through walls is wishful thinking. However, what is more important to me, is stability so if I can get 300mbps through a wall and its rock solid, that far more important to me than 400 and not stable. Thus what I expect from MT is to provide me a way to get a solid stable wifi experience, it may not rock the throughput charts but is dependable.
I'd rather manage rats than software. Follow my advice at your own risk! (Sob & mkx forced me to write that!)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests