160mhz Channel Bandwidth

[SilentStorm]

Hey folks,

I've been looking around online for an answer about this 160mhz channel bandwidth setting on 5ghz network. Not exactly sure if this is something I should be using or not.

My ISP speeds are 500/20 (although I have it as 400/18 for CakeQoS purposes).

My router is the Asus Rog GT AC2900.

 

[eibgrad]

More channel width has the *potential* to increase performance, but also increases the opportunity for interference. So more channel width is only beneficial to the extent you can be assured you do NOT have chronic interference. *Less* channel width can often be better. You just have to experiment to find out.

 

[OzarkEdge]

Hey folks,

I've been looking around online for an answer about this 160mhz channel bandwidth setting on 5ghz network. Not exactly sure if this is something I should be using or not.

My ISP speeds are 500/20 (although I have it as 400/18 for CakeQoS purposes).

My router is the Asus Rog GT AC2900.

Notice that 160 MHz requires using DFS channels. And an AC client would need to support using same.

I would save 160 MHz bandwidth for a dedicated wireless backhaul between like nodes, or WiFi 6e... AX extended to many more 6.0 GHz channels.

Wi-Fi 6E Explained: It Sure Is Here yet Still a Blur | Dong Knows Tech

OE

 

[SilentStorm]

View attachment 30928

Notice that 160 MHz requires using DFS channels. And an AC client would need to support using same.

I would save 160 MHz bandwidth for a dedicated wireless backhaul between like nodes, or WiFi 6e... AX extended to many more 6.0 GHz channels.

Wi-Fi 6E Explained: It Sure Is Here yet Still a Blur | Dong Knows Tech

OE

Appreciate the reply.

So my router also has a "Use DFS Channels" option. My router is an AC router though. If both are supported, is it good to try it out?

More channel width has the *potential* to increase performance, but also increases the opportunity for interference. So more channel width is only beneficial to the extent you can be assured you do NOT have chronic interference. *Less* channel width can often be better. You just have to experiment to find out.

Appreciate your reply as well.

I have an option to enable DFS channels on my router. I heard those are good for less network congestion. Should I try that?

 

[eibgrad]

@OzarkEdge and I are looking at the issue from two different perspectives. He's considering compatibility, I'm considering performance. You need to consider *both* to determine if it makes sense.

 

[SilentStorm]

@OzarkEdge and I are looking at the issue from two different perspectives. He's considering compatibility, I'm considering performance. You need to consider *both* to determine if it makes sense.

Pardon my lack of knowledge here because networking is all new to me.


I think I get you now. So the item (phone, computer, whatever) would have to support the use of a 160mhz band. Got it.

So is there any harm in having the 20/40/80/160mhz option selected? As that is one of the options. We have a couple laptops in the house that support it, so work a try perhaps?

I'm guessing with when enabling 160mhz, I'd also have to enable DFS channels, so I'll do that and see what happens. I'm just a little confused on what you mean by increased interference, because my understanding was that if I turn on DFS channels, it would actually be less congested?

 

[OzarkEdge]

Pardon my lack of knowledge here because networking is all new to me.


I think I get you now. So the item (phone, computer, whatever) would have to support the use of a 160mhz band. Got it.

So is there any harm in having the 20/40/80/160mhz option selected? As that is one of the options. We have a couple laptops in the house that support it, so work a try perhaps?

I'm guessing with when enabling 160mhz, I'd also have to enable DFS channels, so I'll do that and see what happens. I'm just a little confused on what you mean by increased interference, because my understanding was that if I turn on DFS channels, it would actually be less congested?

Sure, turn it ON and try it. No harm done.

The router is designed to get off DFS channels if it detects other usage. This will disrupt your current connections, if it happens, and drop down from 160 MHz bandwidth since not enough channels. So, if your client connection gets upset, you can suspect this.

If you know your clients will be perfectly satisfied without a 160 MHz pipe and DFS, you can avoid this potential disruption to your network and your users without sacrificing much. As network admin, your goal should be 100% stable and reliable, even if not faster than you need (other bottle necks will likely set the bar).

OE

 

[garett_09]

Hey everyone,

I am just new in networking and I am in a dilemma if I should even use 160mhz channel. I have some devices that uses 160mhz maybe 2 of them, my internet maxes out at 600mbps down and 550mbps up. Should I even bother using 160mhz or just stick to 80? I am completely happy with 80mhz as it gets me my max download speeds via speedtest. Just wondering if using the 160mhz might provide me a more consistent throughput.

Thanks.

 

[Tech9]

I am completely happy with 80mhz

Stay in non-DFS channels and at 80MHz wide.

Just wondering if using the 160mhz might provide me a more consistent throughput.

No. It will shorten the router's range (-3dBm) and will depend on DFS channels.

 

[L&LD]

With your current ISP speeds and your current network usage, don't change anything.

But, if you want to test...

Is it a good idea to keep up with Firmware updates?

I have had issues in the past when updating firmware and Internet speed, But it may have just been a fluke, Should I keep up with the updates? If so On all routers or the nodes as well? What about ones acting as access points? Thanks

www.snbforums.com

Use the link above to get a copy of your settings that work right now.


Change to 160MHz bandwidth. Set a fixed Control Channel. Reboot the router. Test this CC as long as needed to verify it is stable, and gives maximum performance (I wouldn't be looking at just speed tests, I would be evaluating the responsiveness of the network as well; i.e. lower latency while browsing). Continue to test further CCs as needed.

If your testing proves unfruitful, use the backup config file you created to quickly go back to where you were before. If, simply switching back to 80MHz bandwidth didn't get you there already.

Have fun!

 

[garett_09]

Stay in non-DFS channels and at 80MHz wide.



No. It will shorten the router's range (-3dBm) and will depend on DFS channels.

This makes sense. As the saying goes "dont fix if it aint broke". I just want some optimizations i guess for the home network.

Cheers

 

[garett_09]

With your current ISP speeds and your current network usage, don't change anything.

But, if you want to test...

Is it a good idea to keep up with Firmware updates?

I have had issues in the past when updating firmware and Internet speed, But it may have just been a fluke, Should I keep up with the updates? If so On all routers or the nodes as well? What about ones acting as access points? Thanks

www.snbforums.com

Use the link above to get a copy of your settings that work right now.


Change to 160MHz bandwidth. Set a fixed Control Channel. Reboot the router. Test this CC as long as needed to verify it is stable, and gives maximum performance (I wouldn't be looking at just speed tests, I would be evaluating the responsiveness of the network as well; i.e. lower latency while browsing). Continue to test further CCs as needed.

If your testing proves unfruitful, use the backup config file you created to quickly go back to where you were before. If, simply switching back to 80MHz bandwidth didn't get you there already.

Have fun!

And i am guessing the responsiveness of the network will only be felt by my 2 devices that supports 160mhz, right?

 

[L&LD]

No. All devices will feel 'fast' or 'sluggish' if the Control Channel has harmful interference (WiFi and/or non-WiFi interference, combined).

 

[drinkingbird]

And i am guessing the responsiveness of the network will only be felt by my 2 devices that supports 160mhz, right?

To put what @L&LD said in a different way, the only devices that might feel a potential benefit are those two (and given your network, sounds like they would not feel any benefit since you aren't exceeding the abilities of 80mhz). The potential negative impact could be felt by all devices, even non-160 ones.

 

[L&LD]

No. Not what I said at all.

 

[drinkingbird]

No. Not what I said at all.

Fine, to combine what you said with what he asked.

 

[garett_09]

Thanks for this! I am using channel 48 and so far it is a lot better and less congested as channel 36 in my area. I checked the channel based on the router’s wifi site survey. A lot of my neighbors were using DFS channels leaving channels 36-48 with only 1 router that is using it aside from me.