AC86U RT Firmware 3.0.0.4.384.81918

[bbunge]

I have such spam appeared:

May 28 17:14:28 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:14:28 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:14:29 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
...

May 28 17:24:42 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:24:52 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:27:03 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)

Simple, if things in the log bother you, don't look at the log. If the router works just leave it alone!

 

[OzarkEdge]

I have such spam appeared:

May 28 17:14:28 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:14:28 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:14:29 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
...

May 28 17:24:42 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:24:52 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)
May 28 17:27:03 acsd: eth6 received event: MAC tx failures (exhaustion of 802.11 retries) exceeding threshold(s)

Not seeing that here... log is quiet except for normal associate/disassociate stuff. I'm using SC with fixed channels, not Auto.

OE

 

[bitsbytes]

passed the 24 hour mark on this update and no problems whatsoever. it's just as stable as the last one, i miss the good old days when updates broke things

 

[DarkKnight75]

Updated today...smooth so far. AIP turned on, dirty upgrade.

 

[tallytr]

Same here, working fine, boring! Can I have at least a customizeable interface, dark mode? Well, it could be done, no?

 

[DarkKnight75]

Same here, working fine, boring! Can I have at least a customizeable interface, dark mode? Well, it could be done, no?

Yeah like Android 10..My only complaint is fix the darn up/down QOS meter..lol

 

[tallytr]

Yeah like Android 10..My only complaint is fix the darn up/down QOS meter..lol

Why would one want to use all these features? Up/Down meter?
In my case I ignore everything. All I need/want is for the clients to have a stable connection to the internet

 

[DarkKnight75]

Why would one want to use all these features? Up/Down meter?
In my case I ignore everything. All I need/want is for the clients to have a stable connection to the internet

Dude, I was being sarcastic. Yes, i also want a stable no BS firmware that i dont have to mess with all the time.

 

[OgUrecheK]

What is optimal logging level?

0 - Emergency
1 - Alerts
2 - Critical
3 - Errors
4 - Warnings
5 - Notification
6 - Information
7 - Debug (debug)

 

[cco12]

does they fix WIFI 2.4G ping time increase?

 

[bitsbytes]

does they fix WIFI 2.4G ping time increase?

i've been testing this out. the results are very inconsistent.

these are the results of two different android phones on the 2.4 range

PING 192.168.1.96 (192.168.1.96): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=0 ttl=64 time=20.636 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.293 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.500 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.796 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.801 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.701 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.354 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.418 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.995 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.475 ms
--- 192.168.1.96 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 1.293/3.696/20.636 ms

PING 192.168.1.99 (192.168.1.99): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=0 ttl=64 time=513.883 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=1 ttl=64 time=357.053 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=2 ttl=64 time=369.030 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=3 ttl=64 time=333.640 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=4 ttl=64 time=246.715 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=5 ttl=64 time=169.512 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=6 ttl=64 time=69.837 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=7 ttl=64 time=277.423 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=8 ttl=64 time=179.613 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=9 ttl=64 time=59.873 ms
--- 192.168.1.99 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 59.873/257.657/513.883 ms

both connected to the main router. on the 5Ghz range pings are very stable.

edit: the phone with the ip 192.168.1.99 had better results when its not in sleep state


PING 192.168.1.99 (192.168.1.99): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=0 ttl=64 time=59.254 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=1 ttl=64 time=59.160 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=2 ttl=64 time=75.709 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.039 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=4 ttl=64 time=90.292 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=5 ttl=64 time=55.554 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=6 ttl=64 time=109.160 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=7 ttl=64 time=20.560 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=8 ttl=64 time=34.912 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=9 ttl=64 time=40.293 ms
--- 192.168.1.99 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 2.039/54.693/109.160 ms

still high though.

 

[podkaracz]

Im using ethernet try this and report back if its only wifi. My ping spikes are smaller after bug-fix release before it was unusable after some time.

 

[bbunge]

i've been testing this out. the results are very inconsistent.

these are the results of two different android phones on the 2.4 range

PING 192.168.1.96 (192.168.1.96): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=0 ttl=64 time=20.636 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.293 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.500 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.796 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.801 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.701 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.354 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.418 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.995 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.96: seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.475 ms
--- 192.168.1.96 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 1.293/3.696/20.636 ms

PING 192.168.1.99 (192.168.1.99): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=0 ttl=64 time=513.883 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=1 ttl=64 time=357.053 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=2 ttl=64 time=369.030 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=3 ttl=64 time=333.640 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=4 ttl=64 time=246.715 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=5 ttl=64 time=169.512 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=6 ttl=64 time=69.837 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=7 ttl=64 time=277.423 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=8 ttl=64 time=179.613 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=9 ttl=64 time=59.873 ms
--- 192.168.1.99 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 59.873/257.657/513.883 ms

both connected to the main router. on the 5Ghz range pings are very stable.

edit: the phone with the ip 192.168.1.99 had better results when its not in sleep state


PING 192.168.1.99 (192.168.1.99): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=0 ttl=64 time=59.254 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=1 ttl=64 time=59.160 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=2 ttl=64 time=75.709 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.039 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=4 ttl=64 time=90.292 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=5 ttl=64 time=55.554 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=6 ttl=64 time=109.160 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=7 ttl=64 time=20.560 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=8 ttl=64 time=34.912 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.99: seq=9 ttl=64 time=40.293 ms
--- 192.168.1.99 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 2.039/54.693/109.160 ms

still high though.

Why are you pinging a client from a client? Really proves nothing other than the clients are busy doing something else. WIFI works differently than Ethernet (WIFI works to avoid collisions thus the inconsistent results. An Ethernet switch eliminates the collision detection and gives greater thruput). You would be better off pinging the router from the client and you still may get inconsistent results on WIFI.

 

[ryan806]

Is there any harm in updating the firmware over wifi if using the GUI firmware upgrade?

 

[OzarkEdge]

Is there any harm in updating the firmware over wifi if using the GUI firmware upgrade?

It's doable, but WiFi can be much less predictable/stable than a wired connection, and since flashing firmware is a critical operation not to be disturbed, I prefer to always use a wired connection and a UPS for steady power, which has always yielded the best results.

OE

 

[cco12]

AC86U Firmware Version : 3.0.0.4.384_81918

WIFI 2.4G when test speed on https://www.speedtest.net/

Still have WIFI 2.4G [ Ping time increase.... ]

normal use sometime ping time increase to 200-300 ms.

 

[Neil62]

And what's your point?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[ryan806]

It's doable, but WiFi can be much less predictable/stable than a wired connection, and since flashing firmware is a critical operation not to be disturbed, I prefer to always use a wired connection and a UPS for steady power, which has always yielded the best results.

OE

I always use a wired connection when flashing firmware, and normally download the file and flash it manually. However today i tried updating by having the router download and flash it, noticed its much slower. Think i'll stick to manually flashing it lol.

 

[maxbraketorque]

I routinely apply manual updates over wifi. I've never had one go bad.

 

[podkaracz]

I routinely apply manual updates over wifi. I've never had one go bad.

It is not possible to brick this router when using gui method of updating firmware. There is some security mechanism that will restore previous firmware if there is bad flash from what i remember.

Also those ping spikes are interesting you should investigate it more guys !