What is the downside of enabling per-client traffic monitoring (to RAM)?

[Grievous Angel]

I forgot all about this Merlin feature until I couldn't figure out a traffic issue. I enabled it and was able to pinpoint the device. It is a *fantastic* feature.

I would like to leave this on all the time, but I assume there's a penalty associated with it. I have the "traffic history location" set to "RAM" . . I think I remember Merlin warning about the implications of lots of writes to the flash memory.

So, can anyone quantify the negative implications of enabling this (to RAM only)? Any measurable impact to routing/wireless performance?

I love this feature. Makes me feel like Network Overlord. We typically have 15 to 20 devices connected at any given time.

Edit: I'm running .45 on the AC66R/U . . running flawlessly.

 

[RMerlin]

Storing to RAM is fine, however data won't survive reboots. I recommend storing on a small USB flash drive so you can maintain historical data.

The main inconvenient is that it's not compatible with HW acceleration. This isn't a problem for anyone whose Internet connection is below 100 Mbits.

 

[Grievous Angel]

Storing to RAM is fine, however data won't survive reboots. I recommend storing on a small USB flash drive so you can maintain historical data.

The main inconvenient is that it's not compatible with HW acceleration. This isn't a problem for anyone whose Internet connection is below 100 Mbits.

I understand the transient nature of storing the info to RAM. I'll scrounge up a USB drive because it would be interesting to see our actual usage (Charter has a 250gig soft cap, and I'm sure we test that regularly).

As to the impact to ISP connections below 100 Mbits (we have 60/4) . . are there any impacts below that threshold, to latency, concurrency or whatever? Or should the performance below 100Mbits be identical, whether HW acceleration (NAT Acceleration) is enabled or not?

There's a lot of value in this data . . but not if I start getting gripes about Netflix/XBox Live performance.

Edit: It doesn't appear to negatively impact me from an ISP/Speed Test standpoint: 56.72/4.35 just measured.

 

[Grievous Angel]

I think you could black list the client in your firewall settings.

I'm not sure if there is a way to completely stop all internet traffic to one specific ip address though.

Thanks.

It was legitimate traffic. I just couldn't find it because I couldn't tell which client. Turns out a windows phone was on an update binge.

 

[4Leaf]

Thanks.

It was legitimate traffic. I just couldn't find it because I couldn't tell which client. Turns out a windows phone was on an update binge.

Oh, wow. I meant that information to go to another forum. That is why I deleted it so fast. I guess not fast enough though lol.

 

[RMerlin]

I understand the transient nature of storing the info to RAM. I'll scrounge up a USB drive because it would be interesting to see our actual usage (Charter has a 250gig soft cap, and I'm sure we test that regularly).

As to the impact to ISP connections below 100 Mbits (we have 60/4) . . are there any impacts below that threshold, to latency, concurrency or whatever? Or should the performance below 100Mbits be identical, whether HW acceleration (NAT Acceleration) is enabled or not?

There's a lot of value in this data . . but not if I start getting gripes about Netflix/XBox Live performance.

Edit: It doesn't appear to negatively impact me from an ISP/Speed Test standpoint: 56.72/4.35 just measured.

It might mean higher CPU usage on the router while under heavy downloading, but unless you also use your router to run other things (like SMB sharing), it should have zero impact.

If it becomes an issue, an RT-AC56/RT-AC68 with its much faster processor might help. These two can reach over 300 Mbps without HW acceleration.

 

[Grievous Angel]

It might mean higher CPU usage on the router while under heavy downloading, but unless you also use your router to run other things (like SMB sharing), it should have zero impact.

If it becomes an issue, an RT-AC56/RT-AC68 with its much faster processor might help. These two can reach over 300 Mbps without HW acceleration.

Yeah I'm just letting it do the wireless routing thing. I'll keep an eye on the CPU.

I'm itching to get the latest and greatest though. I can't bring myself at this point, given that this one is serving its purpose--it's stable and reaches all the areas I need it to reach.

Thanks Merlin . . always a great help.