Asuswrt-Merlin 374.40 Beta 2 is available

[Just Checking]

I'm using the wireless driver from Asus's 374.2xxx or 374.4422 release (I forgot which). The latest driver was causing quite a few users to significantly lose in range/performance.

So for all intent ant purposes, you should get the same performance as Asus's stock firmware on the same driver.



Always check which router model people are talking about (this is why it's critical for people to mention this). Those people are mostly referring to the RT-N66U.

[/QUOTE]
No change in wifi driver in 374.41, since there has been no new code from Asus merged in it. The only real change was an updated version of miniupnpd.

Wifi driver is 100% function of what Asus releases. It's closed source, I can do zero changes to it.[/QUOTE]

The stock firmware that I received from the mfg. for the Asus RT-AC66R router ended in a .3XX number. I used that for awhile before deciding to switch to the Asus-Merlin FW. That is how I have experience that the wireless transfer speeds were in the 25MB - 28MB range. I flashed the firmware to the .4XXX version before flashing the Asus-Merlin 374.39 FW. After reading on this site about potential security problems, I flashed the FW to the 374.40 beta2 or beta3 then a few days later to the 374.40 final version I am on now. I definitely see a decrease in wireless transfer rate from the stock FW of .3XX vintage. I have read that I cannot flash the FW back to that stock FW, even if I had it available. I'm basically trying to find out from this community whether I should pursue previous FW versions or just stick with what I have. My priorities are similar to that evinced by Merlin in that Reliability is #1, Speed is #2, and Feature Set is #3.

 

[RMerlin]

I have read that I cannot flash the FW back to that stock FW, even if I had it available.

Not sure where you read that, but that's not true. You can freely flash back and forth any version you want. Just make sure you do a factory default reset when flashing to an older version to reduce the risks of problems.

 

[L&LD]

I'm trying to find this 374.41 build but can't. Is it available for all supported routers?

 

[Just Checking]

How to Set the Extension Channel

I now have two (2) Asus RT-AC66R routers running Asus-Merlin FW 374.40 Final. The routers are totally separate networks with different WAN IP addresses (Long story on how I achieved that).

The General Tab in the Wireless Section lets the administrator set the Wireless mode (N + AC), the Control Channel (one set at 149, the other at 161) but the Extension Channel has no options other than "Auto" available. Channel Bandwidth is set to 80MHz. No matter how I change the Wireless Mode or Control Channel settings, there is not ability to select the Extension Channel. In my case, both the routers default to Extension Channel 155. and will not change off that channel.

Since the two routers are approximately 25 meters from each other with high gain antennas on each of them, they show up as having 75+% signal strength during the site survey run from each router.

Question: Is the Extension Channel selection a part of the Asus-Merlin programing that can be changed? Unlike the 2.4GHz band, my site survey only shows my equipment (two or three broadcast signals) on the 5GHz band with a signal strength greater than 5% (My neighbor has an Asus AC router that is on channel 36 in the 5GHz band with very weak signal strength).

I have to believe that having two strong 5GHz radio signals with the same Extension Channel is causing interference and reduced Wireless Transfer Rate.

When I change the Channel Bandwidth to 40Mhz only, I lose the ability to select Control Channel 161 (Another Problem). The Extension Channel does not change and remains at Auto with the default Extension Channel of 155. Similarly, when I set the Channel Bandwidth to Auto or 20/40/80MHz, I gain channel 165 in the Control Channel selection box but still cannot control the Extension Channel which still defaults to channel 155.

Can the FW be changed to be able to select any of the Control Channels (149, 151,153, 157, 159, 161, 165) for any Bandwidth selected? Can the FW be changed to be able to select any of the Channels available as the Extension Channel?

According to Buffalo Tech Support, FCC regulations require that the broadcast signal strength be curtailed for channels below 149 to reduce signal interference. Again, according to Buffalo Tech Support, I should expect to see as much as 3dbm gain in signal strength by going to the 149 and above channels because the the radios are allowed to have higher emitter power on those channels. This is the reasoning that I use for wanting to keep all of my 5GHz radios on the 149 to 165 Control Channel band.

 

[L&LD]

I think arbitrarily wanting to keep the channels 'high' for a mere 3dBm increase is not reasonable.

When I was confronted with this issue (using lower channels for the 5GHz band) I found out to my surprise that the lower channels were superior in throughput.

I don't know if Asus or RMerlin will be able to change this behavior (I doubt it), but you can try doing throughput tests with your current configuration and with using the lower channels too.

I think you may also be surprised (as I was) that the lower channels, although theoretically inferior, perform better in the real world.

 

[Livin]

hanging about once a week?

I'm using RT-AC68U_3.0.0.4_374.39_0 and I'm getting freezes/hangs about once a week?

No devices can communicate through the AC68U. To be clear, on the wired LAN side everything is through a separate gig switch which communicates fine with either other... only devices on Wifi/Wired through the ASUS are affected... like remote access from the internet.

Is this a known issue?

thx for the help!

 

[Just Checking]

Lower Channels have Lower Signal Strength and Transfer Rate

I think arbitrarily wanting to keep the channels 'high' for a mere 3dBm increase is not reasonable.

When I was confronted with this issue (using lower channels for the 5GHz band) I found out to my surprise that the lower channels were superior in throughput.

I don't know if Asus or RMerlin will be able to change this behavior (I doubt it), but you can try doing throughput tests with your current configuration and with using the lower channels too.

I think you may also be surprised (as I was) that the lower channels, although theoretically inferior, perform better in the real world.

I tried an experiment to determine the effect of Channel Choice on Signal Strength and wireless transfer rate.

Experimental Set-Up:
- 2X Asus RT-AC66R routers using Asus-Merlin FW ver. 374.40 Final
- Router locations fixed at 15 meters apart with 3 wall between.
- Routers positioned directly opposite each other in the upright position (on the stand)
- Routers at the same horizontal position (approximately 1.2 meters above the floor).
- Routers connected on separate WAN IP addresses (completely separate networks) to the modem with CAT6 Ethernet cables (this should not matter). These routers cannot communicate to each other by wireless or hardwire connection unless I open a port or VPN tunnel.
- Router "#1" connected by CAT6 cable to Intel 1217 T-1000 Gigabit Ethernet Adapter on a Lenovo Thinkserver TS140 server (SATA III busses) and a Crucial M500 SATA III SSD.
- HP Elitebook 8440p Laptop (SATA II busses) and a Crucial M500 SATA III SSD with Intel 6350 dual band N300 wireless adapter card located 3 meters from Router #1 on same horizontal plane.
- Router #2 5GHz Radio on Channel 149 with Extension Channel 155 (default - cannot be changed). 80MHz channel width. N+AC setting.
- Router #1 Initial Setting - 5GHz Radio on Channel 161 with Extension Channel 155 (Default). 80 MHz channel width. N+AC setting. 5GHz radio power set at 150mw.
- Router #1 Second Setting - 5GHZ Radio on Channel 48 with Extension Channel 42 (Default - cannot be changed). 80MHz channel width. N+AC setting. 5GHz radio power set at 150mw.
- Only one other 5GHz radio detectable on Control Channel 38 with Extension Channel 42 (Default - cannot be changed). Signal Strength varies from 5% at Router #2 location to 0% at Router #1 location.

Experimental Results:
- Router #2 detecting signal strength of Router #1 on Control Channel 161 of 73% power.
- Router #2 detecting signal strength of Router #1 on Control Channel 48 of 53% power.
- Wireless transfer speed of a 3GB .iso media file from the HP Elitebook 8440p to Router #1 on 5GHz Control Channel 161 = 21.3MB/sec
- Wireless transfer speed of a 3GB .iso media file from the HP Elitebook 8440p to Router #1 on 5GHz Control Channel 48 = 21.0MB/sec.
- Wireless transfer speed of a 3GB .iso media file from Router #1 on 5GHz Control Channel 161 to HP Elitebook 8440p = 23.8MB/sec
- Wireless transfer speed of a 3GB .iso media file from Router #1 on 5GHz Control Channel 48 to HP Elitebook 8440p = 18.5MB/sec.

Analysis and Conclusions:
- Changing the Control Channel on the Asus RT-AC66R router from channel 161 to 48 resulted in significant signal strength loss (73% to 53%).
- Changing the Control Channel on the Asus RT-AC66R router from channel 161 to 48 made no change in the uplink speed (from Laptop to Router). Probably because the Laptops WiFi card did not change channels and put out the same power.
- Changing the Control Channel on the Asus RT-AC66R router from channel 161 to 48 did decrease the download (Router to Laptop) transfer rate measurably (from 23.8MB/sec to 18.5MB/sec). Most likely this was due to the decreased power output of the Router radio on channel 48 vs 161 even though the power output setting was not changed from 150mw.

 

[V_R]

Just wanted to say thanks to Merlin for his FW, now running his latest beta 2 on my new N66U, 0 issues and a couple of nice new additions. I am converted.

Looking forward to the next build.

 

[RMerlin]

Just wanted to say thanks to Merlin for his FW, now running his latest beta 2 on my new N66U, 0 issues and a couple of nice new additions. I am converted.

Looking forward to the next build.

374.40 final was released a few weeks ago.

 

[V_R]

Lol, what am I...?

For some reason I thought B2 was the latest. Updated, cheers.

 

[teh_g]

Lol, what am I...?

For some reason I thought B2 was the latest. Updated, cheers.

B3 is the latest for AC-68U

 

[uitnecil]

Strange Web UI behavior

After almost 2 days on Build beta 3 on my RT-AC68U, I noticed a strange Web UI behavior (I've only logged in the UI twice)
The upper part of the web UI with the model number, logout and reboot (also with the language choice) is moving down. Also the upper part of the Web UI is getting red. I guess this was done on purpose ... cause it's moving too fancy and if I move the mouse over it it comes back to life and moves to it's place. The Question is: Does it have any signification?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jim769]

B3 is the latest for AC-68U

Not true 374_40 alpha4 is the latest STABLE build for the 68U.

 

[RMerlin]

After almost 2 days on Build beta 3 on my RT-AC68U, I noticed a strange Web UI behavior (I've only logged in the UI twice)
The upper part of the web UI with the model number, logout and reboot (also with the language choice) is moving down. Also the upper part of the Web UI is getting red. I guess this was done on purpose ... cause it's moving too fancy and if I move the mouse over it it comes back to life and moves to it's place. The Question is: Does it have any signification?

Overheating I'm afraid.

 

[uitnecil]

OMG, I can't believe I felt for that ... hahaha.

You know ... I stayed on RT-AC68U_3.0.0.4_374.36_beta1.zip for like 3 weeks and never saw the temperature from UI going past 79 degrees Celsius. After I got to beta 3 I noticed the temperature getting up to 80 degrees Celsius in the first minutes. When I saw your reply with overheating I started thinking seriously about ventilation...

I didn't realize I was on 1st April (past over midnight) when I started to notice the UI change, especially because right before noticing it I added torrents of like 200GB to be downloaded with 3 concurrent torrents downloading with total speed of 7-8 MB/s. I was getting out of memory messages in logs, and I went to look at the temperature just out of curiosity and the main temp was 80 degrees C. Then the UI started falling appart... HAHAHA.

You got me Merlin!

Btw did you change the way the temperatures are read in Beta 3 comparing to Beta 1 ?

 

[RMerlin]

Btw did you change the way the temperatures are read in Beta 3 comparing to Beta 1 ?

No, the temperature are shown as reported by either the wireless driver or the kernel (for CPU temp when supported).

 

[uitnecil]

Just FYI.

I've been in Beta 3 for 3 days. Seems stable for me, but my activities are pretty limited atm. Just wifi N (AC is disabled) and torrenting (34 torrents added... now seeding all day long). I have swap set up.

Uptime 3 days 0 hours 33 minutes 18 seconds

Thanks.

Update:
Uptime 10 days 23 hours 5 minutes 35 seconds

Update:
Uptime 17 days 3 hours 6 minutes 28 seconds