Have been exploring what commands you can do in the system command page.
May not need telnet.
http://192.168.1.1/Main_AdmStatus_Content.asp
May not need telnet.
http://192.168.1.1/Main_AdmStatus_Content.asp
ASUS RT-N66U Dark Knight Dual-Band Wireless-N900 Gigabit Router Reviewed
- Thread starter thiggins
- Start date
- Status
I have the RT-N66U router for about 2 weeks, and I’m wondering if I am getting the performace that I should be. The frsrt thing I did was update the firmware to the latest .112 firmare listed on the Asus site.
The farthest I am away from the router is approximately 70 ft. in a one story home with a pretty open floor plan…the router is in a room at the front of the house with its door usually closed, and I am often on the patio 70 to 75 ft at the back of the house with a sliding glass door closed between the patio and the house.
In the 2.4GHz band I consistently get very good speed at this range…aproximately 36 mbps down and 6 mbps up (or close to it), which is pretty much what I get if hardwired to the modem. But in the 5GHz band it is very erratic. Sometimes it tests as good as in the 2.4GHz, but sometimes it’s quite a bit lower. Sometimes web pages just hang and don't completely load at all in 5GHz. (out on the patio at this range).
Should I be getting better 5GHz performance at this range?
The farthest I am away from the router is approximately 70 ft. in a one story home with a pretty open floor plan…the router is in a room at the front of the house with its door usually closed, and I am often on the patio 70 to 75 ft at the back of the house with a sliding glass door closed between the patio and the house.
In the 2.4GHz band I consistently get very good speed at this range…aproximately 36 mbps down and 6 mbps up (or close to it), which is pretty much what I get if hardwired to the modem. But in the 5GHz band it is very erratic. Sometimes it tests as good as in the 2.4GHz, but sometimes it’s quite a bit lower. Sometimes web pages just hang and don't completely load at all in 5GHz. (out on the patio at this range).
Should I be getting better 5GHz performance at this range?
The performance on 2.4GHz. should be better than the performance on 5GHz. at longer ranges. The physics of wave travel says that as frequency goes up (wavelength goes down) that walls and intervening objects (and just distance, as well) affect 5GHz. more than 2.4GHz. So the answer is no, you shouldn't be getting as good or better performance from 5GHz. at 75 feet, especially with a closed door in-between. 5GHz. is definitely shorter range than 2.4GHz.
You can verify the relative 2.4GHz. and 5GHz. throughput performance at distances from this review:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...al-band-wireless-n900-gigabit-router-reviewed
Lots of performance data there.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...al-band-wireless-n900-gigabit-router-reviewed
Lots of performance data there.
Tim
I spent 5 hours tonight doing an exhaustive (albeit homegrown) comparison between the RT-N66U and Netgear WNDR4500. I focused on overall RF range and reliability of RF while in moderate to weak signal locations.
My test was done in a similar fashion (but more amateurish) to yours where I selected specific locations and tested my wifi clients at those locations. My wifi clients include a Fujitsu laptop with Intel 6205 (15.1.0.18 driver), a Blackberry Playbook running OS V2.0.1 and finally a Blackberry 9900 tested with wifi calling feature in a walk test.
Both routers were mounted in same location (one at a time, of course) and to the best of my ability I oriented them the same way. I also tested in 3 different orientations to find the most optimal direction for the antennas.
WNDR4500 running V1.0.1.6 firmware
RT-N66U running V3.0.0.3.112 (also tried 3.0.0.3.116b)
Both units purchased at retail.
My test locations are RF quiet. I confirmed spurious RF signals using inSSIDer. 2.4Ghz was fairly quiet (very few competing devices and they were all -80db or weaker). 5Ghz was near silent, registering almost nothing in inSSIDer.
Both routers were tested using 2.4Ghz channels 6, 11 and auto setting. 5Ghz channels 149, 161 and auto setting.
Other RF settings were left at factory defaults. For RT-N66U I also tried increasing RF power to 100mW, 160mW and 250mW. None of these "increased" settings did anything to improve RF capabilities on any device, nor did they change the RSSI result in inSSIDer. Right now I'm of the opinion that changing these values is cosmetic only, meaning it only displays in GUI, but does little else. I could be incorrect, but in my sample unit I did not notice any improvement. Nor did increased RF levels increase heat @ heatsink (tested with a laser thermometer). NOTE: I had to use Firefox to get the GUI to accept the "RF power change". IE would not work.
Result:
Location 1 was OK for both routers and all devices tested. I had varying throughput results, copying files to/from my Netgear NAS. I tested each wifi client twice with each router at 2.4Ghz then again at 5Ghz. (a total of 8 tests for each router at each location). Location 1 was a toss-up in my opinion.
Beginning with location 2 the results began leaning towards Netgear. I gave additional weight to stability over throughput. While the Asus had somewhat better throughput at 2.4Ghz, I also found in some runs it dropped the connection. The Netgear did not drop once at location 2. 5Ghz was similar for both routers at location 2, with the throughput nod going to Asus (not by much).
Location 3 and 4 were all Netgear. The WNDR4500 stayed connected 100% of time at 2.4Ghz and 3 out of 4 tests at 5Ghz. The Asus stayed connected 50% of the time at 2.4, and when it did, throughput was really slow. Asus 5Ghz was abysmal at both locations. The Asus could not grab a DHCP address on my Playbook or Fujitsu laptop. When I walked closer to location 2 to help it get an IP, as I walked back to location 3/4 the end result was a lost connection. The Netgear proved to be way better and very usable at locations 3/4 on both bands. Maybe not super speedy but I'll take stability over throughput any day. Whats the point of randomly good throughput when the connection drops more than it stays up?
The real surprise to me was when I did my walk test with my BB9900 on wifi calls. In 6 walk tests with the WNDR4500, the BB9900 completed the walk with only slight chop in call quality, but NEVER dropped a call. Not on either band! The same 6 tests with the Asus proved 2.4Ghz was usable (with more chop and lost audio than Netgear) but at 5Ghz the Asus could not even reach location 2 without dropping the call each and every time tested.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive review, but I thought I'd share my results since they seem to differ from Tim's. Tim, did Asus send you the test unit or did you acquire through retail? Something is up or I got a bum RT-N66U unit. Maybe the newer firmware actually reduces RF power?
On a separate note, I prefer the RT-N66U GUI, feature set and arguably like the external antennas. The PPTP VPN server seems intriguing (though not feature rich), but I have not yet had time to test. I definitely don't like the fact that the GUI is accessible using HTTP (no SSL) and that the wifi passwords, PPTP user account credentials are saved in clear text (duh, Asus, what are you thinking?). Netgear has the same non SSL admin issue.
Thats all for now. I'm sure I'll hear from a few of you. I welcome feedback.
I'm not a hater or lover of either product. Frankly I was hoping the Asus would win as I can think of a few SOHO customers who would like the VPN server capability (assuming its usable).
I spent 5 hours tonight doing an exhaustive (albeit homegrown) comparison between the RT-N66U and Netgear WNDR4500. I focused on overall RF range and reliability of RF while in moderate to weak signal locations.
My test was done in a similar fashion (but more amateurish) to yours where I selected specific locations and tested my wifi clients at those locations. My wifi clients include a Fujitsu laptop with Intel 6205 (15.1.0.18 driver), a Blackberry Playbook running OS V2.0.1 and finally a Blackberry 9900 tested with wifi calling feature in a walk test.
Both routers were mounted in same location (one at a time, of course) and to the best of my ability I oriented them the same way. I also tested in 3 different orientations to find the most optimal direction for the antennas.
WNDR4500 running V1.0.1.6 firmware
RT-N66U running V3.0.0.3.112 (also tried 3.0.0.3.116b)
Both units purchased at retail.
My test locations are RF quiet. I confirmed spurious RF signals using inSSIDer. 2.4Ghz was fairly quiet (very few competing devices and they were all -80db or weaker). 5Ghz was near silent, registering almost nothing in inSSIDer.
Both routers were tested using 2.4Ghz channels 6, 11 and auto setting. 5Ghz channels 149, 161 and auto setting.
Other RF settings were left at factory defaults. For RT-N66U I also tried increasing RF power to 100mW, 160mW and 250mW. None of these "increased" settings did anything to improve RF capabilities on any device, nor did they change the RSSI result in inSSIDer. Right now I'm of the opinion that changing these values is cosmetic only, meaning it only displays in GUI, but does little else. I could be incorrect, but in my sample unit I did not notice any improvement. Nor did increased RF levels increase heat @ heatsink (tested with a laser thermometer). NOTE: I had to use Firefox to get the GUI to accept the "RF power change". IE would not work.
Result:
Location 1 was OK for both routers and all devices tested. I had varying throughput results, copying files to/from my Netgear NAS. I tested each wifi client twice with each router at 2.4Ghz then again at 5Ghz. (a total of 8 tests for each router at each location). Location 1 was a toss-up in my opinion.
Beginning with location 2 the results began leaning towards Netgear. I gave additional weight to stability over throughput. While the Asus had somewhat better throughput at 2.4Ghz, I also found in some runs it dropped the connection. The Netgear did not drop once at location 2. 5Ghz was similar for both routers at location 2, with the throughput nod going to Asus (not by much).
Location 3 and 4 were all Netgear. The WNDR4500 stayed connected 100% of time at 2.4Ghz and 3 out of 4 tests at 5Ghz. The Asus stayed connected 50% of the time at 2.4, and when it did, throughput was really slow. Asus 5Ghz was abysmal at both locations. The Asus could not grab a DHCP address on my Playbook or Fujitsu laptop. When I walked closer to location 2 to help it get an IP, as I walked back to location 3/4 the end result was a lost connection. The Netgear proved to be way better and very usable at locations 3/4 on both bands. Maybe not super speedy but I'll take stability over throughput any day. Whats the point of randomly good throughput when the connection drops more than it stays up?
The real surprise to me was when I did my walk test with my BB9900 on wifi calls. In 6 walk tests with the WNDR4500, the BB9900 completed the walk with only slight chop in call quality, but NEVER dropped a call. Not on either band! The same 6 tests with the Asus proved 2.4Ghz was usable (with more chop and lost audio than Netgear) but at 5Ghz the Asus could not even reach location 2 without dropping the call each and every time tested.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive review, but I thought I'd share my results since they seem to differ from Tim's. Tim, did Asus send you the test unit or did you acquire through retail? Something is up or I got a bum RT-N66U unit. Maybe the newer firmware actually reduces RF power?
On a separate note, I prefer the RT-N66U GUI, feature set and arguably like the external antennas. The PPTP VPN server seems intriguing (though not feature rich), but I have not yet had time to test. I definitely don't like the fact that the GUI is accessible using HTTP (no SSL) and that the wifi passwords, PPTP user account credentials are saved in clear text (duh, Asus, what are you thinking?). Netgear has the same non SSL admin issue.
Thats all for now. I'm sure I'll hear from a few of you. I welcome feedback.
I'm not a hater or lover of either product. Frankly I was hoping the Asus would win as I can think of a few SOHO customers who would like the VPN server capability (assuming its usable).
jerry6
Very Senior Member
Strange , maybe you got a bad unit ? When I bought and tested the 4500 netgear it would not reach the basement of my house , no signal at all , that's why I returned it and ordered the rt-n66 . It reaches the basement with a good signal , not great but good .
As for transfer rates the 66 just kills the netgear in both bands , at least that's the results got , 66 beats the 4500 by a minimum of 10 mbps in both bands . Files that took 5 minutes to transfer now take 2 .
Did notice a 2 - 3 mbps drop in transfer rate with .112 , .108 was best
As for transfer rates the 66 just kills the netgear in both bands , at least that's the results got , 66 beats the 4500 by a minimum of 10 mbps in both bands . Files that took 5 minutes to transfer now take 2 .
Did notice a 2 - 3 mbps drop in transfer rate with .112 , .108 was best
Jerry
I did notice better throughput with the n66u at location 1. Once I started testing at location 2+ I began seeing unreliability from the n66u so I focused more on stability. I tried both 20mhz and 20/40 modes but couldn't seem to gain a consistently reliable link to compare throughput. I do not have a 3 stream client to test with.
I have a replacement 66u on the way to eliminate the chance of a single bad unit. I'm not overly optimistic since there's no manual trimming/tuning done at the factory. We shall see.
I just may run another mini comparison using .108 on the replacement.
I did notice better throughput with the n66u at location 1. Once I started testing at location 2+ I began seeing unreliability from the n66u so I focused more on stability. I tried both 20mhz and 20/40 modes but couldn't seem to gain a consistently reliable link to compare throughput. I do not have a 3 stream client to test with.
I have a replacement 66u on the way to eliminate the chance of a single bad unit. I'm not overly optimistic since there's no manual trimming/tuning done at the factory. We shall see.
I just may run another mini comparison using .108 on the replacement.
Here it is:
"Thank you for that information and thank you for your patience. The size of the NVRAM will be fixed and adjusted to 64KB in an upcoming firmware update. The tentative time frame will be by June.
Let me know if you have further concerns.
Best Regards,
Adam K.
Customer Care Specialist J
ASUS Computers International"
"Thank you for that information and thank you for your patience. The size of the NVRAM will be fixed and adjusted to 64KB in an upcoming firmware update. The tentative time frame will be by June.
Let me know if you have further concerns.
Best Regards,
Adam K.
Customer Care Specialist J
ASUS Computers International"
Mektub
New Around Here
Cannot update from 108 to 112
I have been running version 108 for over a month now, and today I tried to upgrade by going into the web interface Administration --> Firmware Upgrade and either using the auto update and also by downloading the Firmare from ASUS.
In both cases the Firmware seems to being updated, the progress bar goes to 100% but there is no reboot and the instaled firmware stays at version 108.
If I go to above option again, I get the message that a firmware update is available, but no joy.
Using Linux, tried Windows also, and Firefox.
Shall I do some kind of reset to get out of this loop ?
Thanks, Mektub
I have been running version 108 for over a month now, and today I tried to upgrade by going into the web interface Administration --> Firmware Upgrade and either using the auto update and also by downloading the Firmare from ASUS.
In both cases the Firmware seems to being updated, the progress bar goes to 100% but there is no reboot and the instaled firmware stays at version 108.
If I go to above option again, I get the message that a firmware update is available, but no joy.
Using Linux, tried Windows also, and Firefox.
Shall I do some kind of reset to get out of this loop ?
Thanks, Mektub
Didn't try i Windows, but in linux (mandriva in my case) firefox is not able to transfer files to the router both to the web ui or to the recovery interface. Konqueror works fine (at least for me)
jreed
New Around Here
I'd try clearing the nvram, this will force you to reset up your configuration changes, so make note of your settings.
To do this first make sure to enable telnet in 66u.
Start a telnet session, from C:\ prompt type:
telnet 192.168.1.1
enter login: admin
enter your password:xxxxx
now enter these commands exactly:
mtd-erase -d nvram
reboot
This will force clearing the nvram when all else has not worked, and would be recommend for every FW upgrade.
Good news, thanks. Glad that Asus continues to work on the firmware, too.
jerry6
Very Senior Member
108 would not update for me either , went through the process said updated , but still on 108 . had to dl 112 open it and point the router to the file , then it updated fine
I believe that this is one of the things that's supposed to be fixed in 112, upgrading via the Web GUI:
ASUS RT-N66U B1 Firmware Version 3.0.0.3.112
1. Fixed live update version identification issue.
At least, that's how I interpret the above item from Asus' "release notes" *smile*. So you should be good going forward from 112 firmware.
Mektub
New Around Here
jreed,
followed your instructions, and it did the update.
Many thanks, jreed !
I did a "Save Settings" under Administration before updating, and a restore afterwards.
Hope I didn't restore the problem with it.
@jerry6, @RogerSC, thanks for clarifying. The update was under ARCH linux, FF 12.0.
Mektub
broke
It fixed the update bug and BROKE IPV6........... I rather have the update bug. .108 is the firmware to use for now.
CC
It fixed the update bug and BROKE IPV6........... I rather have the update bug. .108 is the firmware to use for now.
CC
I got a replacement N66U today. This time installed .108 firmware since many seem to think this is best.
Had the exact same end result as original unit. WNDR4500 beat it hands down in every long range test (both 2.4 and 5Ghz).
Just to prove it was not this test location, I took them both to a different building. End result was same using my Fujitsu laptop with Intel 6205, BB Playbook and wifi calling on my BB9900. This time I also added an iPod Touch 4g. In every distance test the WNDR4500 won (meaning it maintained a solid connection at further distance).
In testing throughput the N66U seemed a bit better, but only at closer distances. Again, I'd rather have less throughput, but maintain reliability. I'm sure not everyone will agree.
I wonder if I have a "super tuned" WNDR4500. I plan to pickup a second sample to compare.
Had the exact same end result as original unit. WNDR4500 beat it hands down in every long range test (both 2.4 and 5Ghz).
Just to prove it was not this test location, I took them both to a different building. End result was same using my Fujitsu laptop with Intel 6205, BB Playbook and wifi calling on my BB9900. This time I also added an iPod Touch 4g. In every distance test the WNDR4500 won (meaning it maintained a solid connection at further distance).
In testing throughput the N66U seemed a bit better, but only at closer distances. Again, I'd rather have less throughput, but maintain reliability. I'm sure not everyone will agree.
I wonder if I have a "super tuned" WNDR4500. I plan to pickup a second sample to compare.
QOS bug
Hello all,
This is from the other thread regarding the QOS bug. I just wanted to know if ASUS fixed it yet. Thanks!
http://forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showthread.php?p=37364#post37364
Hello all,
This is from the other thread regarding the QOS bug. I just wanted to know if ASUS fixed it yet. Thanks!
http://forums.smallnetbuilder.com/showthread.php?p=37364#post37364
Last edited:
jerry6
Very Senior Member
super tuned or not , hang on to it , you have a better than average unit , I could not get those results using the 4500 . Like I said , would not get any signal down in my basement ,and transfers take 1/2 the time with the 66 . I ran over 100 tests just to be sure it was not some fluke .
- Status
Similar threads
Similar threads
