New Router Test Processes Are Coming

[thiggins]

Might be interesting to try, see if results change. Probably not worth adding to the test process, though, you're right.

You're right. I probably should try it at least a few times.
I'm a little overloaded right now trying to get all the new wired and wireless tests vetted. Driving me a little crazy.

When I'm done, though, EVERY router will get functionally tested pretty thoroughly. That's more than any other publication does. Gotta walk before we run...

 

[sfx2000]

So you think the Router Storage test results are too low?

The key thing the dock provides is eSATA. That's needed for NAS testing and was needed for the new Linksys WRTs...

Sabrent just released an mSATA USB3 case - (edit, USB3 only, but SATA II/III supported, still a very good price, and bus powered as well)

https://www.sabrent.com/category/hard-drive-enclosures/EC-UKMS/

$15 USD on the Amazon

 

[Razor512]

I would hate to see the kind of price markup they are charging for the NTA1000 (I am guessing they won't offer coupon codes to bring the price down to the $200-300 range).

I also wonder how much automation can be done with the tests, as it seems like a massive amount of work, especially if multiple routers needed to be tested to have some initial comparisons to be present for new reviews going forward.

 

[thiggins]

The NTA1000 is not intended for consumers.

CDRouter makes running hundreds of functional tests very easy.

 

[lo pro joe]

I'm sure you've reached out to the suppliers - both for the test equipment and Vendors/OEM's on feedback - but as you state, it's the WAN connectivity that is problematic... but if one were to stand up a small DCHP6-PD "WAN" server, this might help - at least to get a baseline performance, as this is fairly common (it's the options that are tough across different operators, Comcast and Cox have both had issues here - Cox's is ongoing even now, as they pretty much rolled out v6 in the last couple of months)

Although it may be messy, I'd rather see the warts and corns tested and reported, if possible. Whether they have any weight in the assessment calculations is a separate question. But IMHO leaving out IPv6 testing entirely simply helps keep the problems invisible.

 

[lo pro joe]

Will evaluating multicast performance be a part of your test suite? (I hope so...)

 

[thiggins]

We won't be testing multicast performance, no. IPv6 is not included at this time because there is too much variation in connection mode support, causing a lot of time spent on just configuring the router for test.

The functional test list is here:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/mydownloads/snb_router_functional_testlist_v4.pdf