Why is my wireless LAN speed slower than my wireless internet speed on AX86U?

[drinkingbird]

The same test-results but on the mac minis terminal window. It says "0" under sender for some reason, and the speeds are different too for some reason when comparing them side-by-side to the macbook air. Isn't that strange? I thought they'd be identical to what the terminal on the missus' macbook air says.

Not technically a problem but it means one side was not able to communicate the stats back to the other. Implies there is a firewall or something enabled. Are you testing with firewall disabled on both machines? If you do an iperf reverse test (upload) does it fail? Typically when the stats can't be sent back the upload/reverse test also won't work as it can't initiate that TCP session.

 

[torstein]

thanks for the suggestions. I tried three different ways. The AX86U is in the study room next door, while macbook pro and mac mini is in the living room close to each other. So the path is:

mac mini server (living room) - - - - -> |Wall|_AX86U_|Wall| - - - - -> macbok pro (living room)

1) Drag-and-drop in Finder (Mac's equivalent to Windwos Explorer)
2) Drag-and-drop through VNC screen sharing (the mac mini is a headless mac, so I VNC into it to control it)


1) Drag and drop Finder
Took 2m55s, at 20MB/s (160mbps) at the first attempt, second and third attempt it transferred at 32MB/s (256mbps).

2) Drag and drop through VNC screen sharing
Just for fun I wanted to see if perhaps VNC is faster than Samba (macOS uses samba for file sharing just like windows). Same-ish speed. 30MB/s (240mbps)

Sidenote: I reversed the direction to see if it made a difference, but the same speeds were reproduced when transferring from macbook pro to mac mini.
macbok pro (living room) - - - - -> |Wall|_AX86U_|Wall| - - - - -> mac mini server (living room)

So there we have it. File transfers in Finder between macbook pro and mac mini reflects iperf3 speeds more or less, but doesn't explain why 1) the wlan is so dogslow at only 200-260mbps on an AX86U, and 2) why Infuse video-player only get 60-80mbps streaming from the mac mini (130 when mac mini is wired directly to ax86u).

EDIT: @drinkingbird I forgot to mention that I tried running in parallel, but it wouldn't even run the test. (192.168.509.205 is the local IP of the mac mini server) :

user@user-MacBook-Pro ~ % /Applications/Utilities/iperf3 -P 2 -c 192.168.50.205
^C- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[SUM]   0.00-0.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  sender
[SUM]   0.00-0.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  receiver
iperf3: interrupt - the client has terminated

I had to ctrl-c and cancel the whole thing because it would just hang and not do anything.

 

[bennor]

Are all my macs' wireless cards broken, or is it the AX86U perhaps that is broken? Or is it congestion due to me living in a neighborhood with a lot of WiFi's?

Do you have access to a non Apple computer or device you can use to test with? That might potentially help narrow down to it being either an Apple issue or a router issue or the Infuse app.

A internet search for "infuse video player slow transfer" brings up the following where others are experiencing slow transfer speeds over several years so it looks like the Infuse app might be the culprit.
https://community.firecore.com/t/slow-smb-streaming-from-mac/37700

Very slow transfers from SMB share to Infuse

Very slow transfers from an SMB share to Infuse on the iPad. 4GB file takes upwards of 15 minutes to transfer. I don’t see such bad speeds in other things I use the iPad for. Much faster going through the web app to transfer to the device, but it’s also more cumbersome IMO. Curious if there was...

community.firecore.com

Testing Streaming Speeds

Overview Infuse includes a built-in speed test feature that allows you to test actual transfer speeds from where your videos are stored. Some devices support multiple streaming protocols (EG SMB, N...

support.firecore.com

I see you have a post over on the firecore.com community forums. You have a mod over there asking you questions that haven't been answered.

Will the Infuse devs fix slow smb speeds soon?

Hi, I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but FireCore needs to do something about how Infuse handles SMB-shares on macOS / tvOS / iOS at least. On my Macbook (client) I can only get 90mbps in Infuse streaming from Mac mini (smb-server, built-in-vanilla macOS file sharing, nothing fancy)...

community.firecore.com

One may want to look into using another media playing app or program (if possible) on the Mac to see if that solves the slow SMB speeds one see's in Infuse.

 

[torstein]

No, sorry, I don't. Only macs here. I'm gonna go and get another Asus router - the AX1800U - and see if that helps. It can push out 1201mbps on the 5Ghz-radio, so should be enough to test and see if it's my AX86U that's causing the lame wlan-speeds or not. I did try with the ISP combo modem/router/WiFi as I wrote earlier, but I doubt it has enough horsepower to conclude with anything. What do you think? Or is there something else I can try?

 

[bennor]

No, sorry, I don't. Only macs here. I'm gonna go and get another Asus router - the AX1800U - and see if that helps. It can push out 1201mbps on the 5Ghz-radio, so should be enough to test and see if it's my AX86U that's causing the lame wlan-speeds or not. I did try with the ISP combo modem/router/WiFi as I wrote earlier, but I doubt it has enough horsepower to conclude with anything. What do you think? Or is there something else I can try?

I've updated my earlier post with additional info, you should see and answer the mod's questions to your post over on the Infuse Firecore community page discussing this issue.

Will the Infuse devs fix slow smb speeds soon?

Hi, I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but FireCore needs to do something about how Infuse handles SMB-shares on macOS / tvOS / iOS at least. On my Macbook (client) I can only get 90mbps in Infuse streaming from Mac mini (smb-server, built-in-vanilla macOS file sharing, nothing fancy)...

community.firecore.com

 

[torstein]

I've updated my earlier post with additional info, you should see and answer the mod's questions to your post over on the Infuse Firecore community page discussing this issue.

Will the Infuse devs fix slow smb speeds soon?

Hi, I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but FireCore needs to do something about how Infuse handles SMB-shares on macOS / tvOS / iOS at least. On my Macbook (client) I can only get 90mbps in Infuse streaming from Mac mini (smb-server, built-in-vanilla macOS file sharing, nothing fancy)...

community.firecore.com

Thanks, cool that you found my post on Infuse forum I will see what he writes. But Infuse is just one part of the problem ( which I wrote earlier and you also pointed out now, Infuse has had slow smb-speeds complaints for years from users, so there's nothing new there), the other problem is you guys suggest something is wrong with my WLAN speeds, since I get 500mbps on wireless testing internet speeds, and only 280mbps testing wlan speeds in iperf3, you guys also suggested I should be seeing close to 600+ mbps on the AX86U using iperf3 and close to it using samba between macs, so at this point I am more worried about my wlan than I am about Infuse, giving examples that even old AC1900 routers give better performance than my AX86U.

 

[torstein]

UPDATE:

Went and got the AX1800U, set it up and placed in the exact same spot as the AX86U. Everything on wireless.

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  30.3 MBytes   254 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  29.6 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  29.5 MBytes   247 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  28.6 MBytes   239 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  28.8 MBytes   241 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  30.6 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  30.6 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  29.6 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  30.7 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  28.7 MBytes   242 Mbits/sec            
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   297 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   295 MBytes   247 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Exact same slow speeds, sadly. So no difference between AX86U and AX1900U. (I of course turned the AX86U off as to not interfere).

I then moved the new AX1800U into the living room in a direct line of sight between my mac mini and my macbook pro. On wireless.

[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  39.2 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  42.4 MBytes   357 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  44.3 MBytes   371 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  43.1 MBytes   361 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   4.00-5.01   sec  43.3 MBytes   362 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   5.01-6.00   sec  43.8 MBytes   368 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   6.00-7.01   sec  44.5 MBytes   373 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   7.01-8.00   sec  45.3 MBytes   382 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  42.5 MBytes   356 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  46.0 MBytes   387 Mbits/sec            
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   434 MBytes   364 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   432 MBytes   362 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Slightly better, but nowhere near as fast as it should be.

Let's move the AX86U into the living room, in the same direct line of sight between my mac mini and my macbook pro. Still on wireless.

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  38.8 MBytes   325 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  41.7 MBytes   351 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  41.0 MBytes   344 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  44.9 MBytes   376 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  47.1 MBytes   395 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  45.6 MBytes   383 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  46.5 MBytes   391 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  46.2 MBytes   387 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  46.5 MBytes   390 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  45.8 MBytes   384 Mbits/sec            
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   444 MBytes   373 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   443 MBytes   371 Mbits/sec                  receiver

So, exact same speeds as the significantly cheaper AX1900U. Kinda regret spending all that money on the AX86U haha, wow....

So I guess then my AX86U is fine. This is as good as it gets in my apartment for some reason? Even in direct line of sight between the two macs and the AX86U I am nowhere near the speeds you other guys are having. For some reason... I guess it could be macOS and not the mac minis wifi-card, since three different macs all exhibits the same slow WLAN speeds in iperf3 regardless of router.

 

[L&LD]

When (not if) Apple makes routers again to keep the people totally within their walled garden, performance will be not only good/comparable, but it will be consistent as well.

Until then... they're not allowed into my home (grossly expensive toys with insufficient performance or user experience to back up those costs (for me).

 

[drinkingbird]

UPDATE:

Went and got the AX1800U, set it up and placed in the exact same spot as the AX86U. Everything on wireless.

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  30.3 MBytes   254 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  29.6 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  29.5 MBytes   247 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  28.6 MBytes   239 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  28.8 MBytes   241 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  30.6 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  30.6 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  29.6 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  30.7 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  28.7 MBytes   242 Mbits/sec            
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   297 MBytes   249 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   295 MBytes   247 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Exact same slow speeds, sadly. So no difference between AX86U and AX1900U. (I of course turned the AX86U off as to not interfere).

I then moved the new AX1800U into the living room in a direct line of sight between my mac mini and my macbook pro. On wireless.

[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  39.2 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  42.4 MBytes   357 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  44.3 MBytes   371 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  43.1 MBytes   361 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   4.00-5.01   sec  43.3 MBytes   362 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   5.01-6.00   sec  43.8 MBytes   368 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   6.00-7.01   sec  44.5 MBytes   373 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   7.01-8.00   sec  45.3 MBytes   382 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  42.5 MBytes   356 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  46.0 MBytes   387 Mbits/sec            
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   434 MBytes   364 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   432 MBytes   362 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Slightly better, but nowhere near as fast as it should be.

Let's move the AX86U into the living room, in the same direct line of sight between my mac mini and my macbook pro. Still on wireless.

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  38.8 MBytes   325 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  41.7 MBytes   351 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  41.0 MBytes   344 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  44.9 MBytes   376 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  47.1 MBytes   395 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  45.6 MBytes   383 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  46.5 MBytes   391 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  46.2 MBytes   387 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  46.5 MBytes   390 Mbits/sec            
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  45.8 MBytes   384 Mbits/sec            
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   444 MBytes   373 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   443 MBytes   371 Mbits/sec                  receiver

So, exact same speeds as the significantly cheaper AX1900U. Kinda regret spending all that money on the AX86U haha, wow....

So I guess then my AX86U is fine. This is as good as it gets in my apartment for some reason? Even in direct line of sight between the two macs and the AX86U I am nowhere near the speeds you other guys are having. For some reason... I guess it could be macOS and not the mac minis wifi-card, since three different macs all exhibits the same slow WLAN speeds in iperf3 regardless of router.

You're starting to approach 400 meg which is actually pretty good for 1200M AX link speed and wifi to wifi communication. When running wireless to wireless your AP is essentially a repeater, cutting your usable (about 800M) bandwidth in half. It is possible to get a bit more, maybe as high as 450 or even 500 (in very rare cases), but probably not with the cheap-ish chipsets in a home router.

The fact that moving closer to the router made a pretty substantial improvement says it is likely congestion and interference. You can try different channels or see what auto channel gives you (if not already using that) to see if you can extend your range. But it also relies heavily on what materials are in your walls etc too. Make sure you have universal beamforming disabled on both bands. You can also toy with the MIMO settings seeing if any of them yield better or worse results. For most they don't make any difference but sometimes they do interfere.

Also bear in mind that older devices (AC, N, etc) or devices with poor signal will impact your overall wireless network, bringing speeds down.

For me having the router mounted on the ceiling with the antennas in a \ | / configuration (one straight at the floor, the others at 45 degree angles to it) yields the best results throughout my house and even outside. But understood that may not be practical for some. Placement of your PCs can come into play too, if one is directly under the router it can severely impact speed as that is a bit of a dead zone. Being under a desk or in a cabinet etc is problematic too. If you have 4 antennas then have the middle two straight and the outer two at 45 degrees. You can play with the configuration of the antennas and router placement to see what works best for you.

Obviously the best thing is to hardwire wherever you can, but if not possible you just have to be aware of the limitations of wireless to wireless communication.

If you need wireless and need more speed, then putting an external wifi adapter on the PCs that don't move around (a 3 stream if possible, with external antennas) should help.

As far as the streaming limits that seems to be application related.

 

[torstein]

Final UPDATE:

So I caved in, and got yet another router, the TP-Link AX7800 Triband router, just to make sure it isn't just Asus chipset and firmware that's doing somehting weird or is incompatible with my macs. It's a 350€ router here in my country and the best one available in my local store, and it's a triband with a theoretical accumulated max of 7800 vs AX86U theoretical accumulated max of 5700mbps.

So the test:

1)
First I connected the two macs to two different radios. The macbook pro to the 5Ghz radio 1 and the mac mini to the 5Ghz radio 2. These are the results:

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  75.1 MBytes   630 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  62.7 MBytes   524 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  21.9 MBytes   184 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  26.5 MBytes   223 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  87.5 MBytes   735 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  91.8 MBytes   768 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  88.0 MBytes   739 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  93.1 MBytes   781 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   8.00-9.01   sec  86.2 MBytes   722 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   9.01-10.00  sec  89.4 MBytes   752 Mbits/sec         
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   722 MBytes   606 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   722 MBytes   606 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Much much better, and it confirms what someone else said earlier, that I'm choking the radio when I am both sending and receiving on it, effectively halfing the bandwith. In other words 280-300 ish mbps is normal then.


2)
I then connected the two macs to the same 5GHz radio.

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  32.4 MBytes   271 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  34.9 MBytes   294 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  31.8 MBytes   266 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  20.7 MBytes   174 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  15.5 MBytes   130 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  30.1 MBytes   253 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  33.8 MBytes   283 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  35.4 MBytes   297 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  36.8 MBytes   309 Mbits/sec         
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  37.0 MBytes   311 Mbits/sec         
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   308 MBytes   259 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   307 MBytes   257 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Which is in line with what my AX86U produces. Having said that, the TP-Link 7800 has a very unstable WLAN perforamnce. It kept jumping up and down like crazy. I had to run iperf3 several times before I got something that I could post. It is true what the seller said, and it reflects what this forum says and DongKnows write - TPlink is nowhere near as good as Asus. I guess you get what you pay for.

Conclusion:
300mbps when using smb over WiFi6 with just one radio is to be expected from one 5Ghz radio, it seems. At least when you live in a big city in an apartment complex with interference from neighboring WiFis (there are 40 different SSIDS in my vicinity of varying strength) with a mix of concrete and wooden walls. It's what I get testing four different routers with three different Macs and one Apple TV 4K in direct line of sight to the router: Asus AX86U, Asus AX1800U, ISPs own WiFi-router and TPLink AX95U 7800mbps. And they all produce the same results - 220-300mbps (it keeps jumping a bit - probably due to interference from surrounding WiFis and different / inferior(?) hardware.

Infuse was not affected in any way or the other, regardsless of the router running on one or two radios on the triband TPLink. Infuse produced only 60-80mbps regardless if it was the Apple TV 4K or the Macbook Pro streaming from the Mac mini. All I can say is that Infuse is simply broken. No matter what the mods over at the Infuse-forum keeps telling themselves and its users.

As a sidenote, the TP-link produced the worst speed-test data I have seen so far in Infuse. The speed-graph kept jumping up and down like a jojo between 3mbps and 90mbps. Same in iperf3, albeit with higher speed values. The TP-link AX7800U router seems to be a very unstable router WLAN-wise, and I'm definitely returning it. It produced worse results than the AX86U. But it doesn't matter, Infuse seems to be the limiting factor. I suspect that Infuse's smb-implementation is just subpar and needs fixing.

Last but not least, I don't know how you other guys are getting 80MB/s (600+ mbps) from one wireless client to another wireless client. You must have enterprise hardware costing four figures or live in the desert far away from other people. I sure am not getting anywhere close to it and I have now tried to do so with three different macs (two of them AX, one AC), one apple tv (AX), and four different routers (all AX and one of them triband). I have factory reset the routers and clean-installed macOS, reinstalled the AX86U with merlin-firmware and even tried the official Asus-firmware, with no difference in the results. Perhaps it could be interference from neighbors' WiFi? 30MB/s (240mbps) is the best I get in a direct line of sight between the two macs and AX86U, AX1800U and AX7800U on one radio.

Thanks to everyone who chimed in to help. It has been fun and I've learned a lot. 300-ish mbps is what I'll get on my wlan, unless I get a triband, like the Asus GT-AX11000. Won't make a difference to Infuse, though... but at least file transfers between macs would be faster. But not worth upgrading from the already expensive (at the time two years ago) AX86U. I guess I'll just have to accept poor performance until we move again and I can set everything back up with ethernet again (hopefully).

Again thanks to everyone.

EDIT:
@drinkingbird I posted right after you had submitted your response. Yes, it seems like my results are what's to be expected of my consumer Asus-hardware in a very congested apartment building with concrete / woodden walls. I also have a HomePod (AC) and wifey's macbook air is AC- as well. They have good signal strength, but I guess them being AC probably affects performance of the entire network nonetheless.

As far as the streaming limits that seems to be application related.

Definitely!! But FireCore will never admit that Infuse's SMB is broken. They just give the same boiler plate response no matter what evidence I provide (copied from this thread) and others argue - "SMB is complex with lots of overhead and acts differently on wireless than it does on ethernet, you should try other protocols such as NFS or WebDAV if the smb speed does not meet your expectations or you should use wired". Ugh...

Anyways thank you.

 

[torstein]

I forgot to post an answer to my own original question of this thread:

"Why is my wireless LAN speed slower than my wireless internet speed on AX86U?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've learned here, it's because using samba to transfer a file between two computers, the AX86U's single 5GHz radio both receives and sends data at the same time - so bidirectional data. This saturates the radio, effectively cutting the radio's bandwith in half sharing it equally between receiving from one computer and sending it to the second computer. When I'm testing my internet speed on speedtest.net, the radio is simply relaying or just sending the traffic to my mac unidirectionally, allowing the radio to use all its potential bandwith on just sending data (unidirectionally). That's why I get 500mbps on speedtest.net, while testing in iperf I only get 280-300mbps because data is bidirectional - ie the AX86U is both receiving and sending at the same time, choking out the radio. Is this correct?

 

[L&LD]

Yes. WiFi, being a shared medium, is shared via time slices. When it is transmitting, it is not receiving, and vice versa. So even if the radios are operating optimally for each short transmit or receive cycle, the overall throughput is halved.

The same thing happens when there are other routers/APs in the vicinity that the router 'sees'. The reason why it is usually better (throughput/latency) to use a channel with strong WiFi neighboring routers rather than distant/weak ones. The weak signals take much longer time slices than the nearer stronger router signals and the overall throughput is less (even if an 'app' may show it as more optimal).

Ethernet is full duplex, WiFi is not (ever). Even when there are no other routers around, there is still non-WiFi interference that they still have to contend with.

 

[drinkingbird]

Final UPDATE:


Again thanks to everyone.

You actually didn't need the TP Link to perform that test. Your two Asus routers can become a dual radio router. Put whichever one isn't currently your main router into AP mode, connect a LAN port on that to a LAN port on the other Asus, give it a second SSID and non-overlapping 5ghz channel. Mac Mini on one SSID, laptop on the other. You should be able to get between 700 and 800 wireless to wireless now as each radio is only handling one device. You can see if the speed stability is better on the Asus that way too.

To take it a step further, plug your mac mini into the main Asus router (the one that also serves your AC and other devices) and disable the mini's wifi, and now run the test, and you can see how much those older devices are dragging your performance down (the second router is now serving just a single AX client and nothing else, and the hardwired mini is not impacted by wifi clients). You'll still be impacted by other signals/noise in the area but not by older devices connected to your wifi.

In theory the AX1800 might give you a bit better performance in that second test if used as the AP but probably not a huge difference (if any) since your clients are still AX 1200. Hopefully you can return your extra two routers (or at least the TP link if you decide you want to keep the second Asus in order to use it as a simulated dual radio router). If higher wifi to wifi speeds are important, then a dual radio Asus or upgrading your stuff to AXe or BE is probably your best bet. Running the dual router setup is somewhat the same as the dual radio router, just a bit more clutter and potentially some cross interference (wouldn't want them right next to each other necessarily, the dual radio routers have at least a minimal design to prevent crosstalk/interference, whereas two separate routers won't. At the very least they should be on other sides of the same room). Heck that setup might actually perform a bit better than a dual radio router, having that physical separation between them.

If you want to stick with a single router with single 5ghz radio, look at some of the suggestions I made like disabling universal beamforming, trying different channels, toying with MIMO settings, etc, to see if you can extend that high 300 meg or low 400 meg performance further from the router. Antenna and router placement can make a huge difference too. You can try 160mhz channels if your clients support it but that can often be unstable and open a whole other can of worms.

People getting 600M transfer rates wifi to wifi are probably running 160Mhz channels (2400 AX link speed) or 3 stream clients. In other words, they are not running AX 1200.

 

[torstein]

Your two Asus routers can become a dual radio router.

That's a brilliant idea! I did what you suggested and set it in AP-mode, 5Ghz radio, different SSID, disabled universal beamforming, plugged into AX86U and chose channel 140, since my AX86U is on the other side of the spectrum. The ethernet cable is kinda short, so I had to place it two shelves under the AX86U which stands on the op the shelf. Probably not ideal, but best I could do with the cable at hand. Connected mac mini to the new SSID I named Infuse and left my Macbook Pro on the original AX86U ssid.

[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  7.78 MBytes  65.2 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   1.00-2.01   sec  8.22 MBytes  68.6 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   2.01-3.00   sec  8.27 MBytes  69.6 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  6.75 MBytes  56.6 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  8.23 MBytes  68.9 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  8.60 MBytes  72.3 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  7.72 MBytes  64.8 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  8.84 MBytes  74.0 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  8.26 MBytes  69.3 Mbits/sec                
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  7.50 MBytes  63.0 Mbits/sec                
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  80.2 MBytes  67.2 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  79.9 MBytes  67.0 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Yeah... don't know what went wrong there. Kept running the test perhaps 15 times. Sometimes it went down to 15mbps. I tried setting a different channel, same thing. I guess the routers are just too close to each other, that plus all the other interference around here.

So I packed the AX1800U up and will return it today together with the TP-Link. It also looked very cluttered, so even if it had given me the 700mbps it theoretically should have it would have been aesthetically unacceptable.

To take it a step further, plug your mac mini into the main Asus router

Can't do that. Would end up looking very bad on the book shelf with a router, a mac mini, cables dangling, four different harddrives connected. Everything needs to be tucked and hidden nicely away, so the only thing that goes on the shelf is the AX86U (after much discussion). It needs to be there because coincidentally that's where the modem outlets and everything is located. Everything else I have tucked away under the TV in the tv stand (semi-open solution, no drawers blocking wifi signal to mac mini)

look at some of the suggestions I made like disabling universal beamforming, trying different channels, toying with MIMO settings

I had no idea that was a thing. Indeed universal beamforming was enabled on my AX86U, so I disabled it on both radios, and now even without a direct line of sight I get 300mbps (macbook and mac mini in the same room, router in another)!!! That's quite the improvement. I even got 410mbps when my mac was in the same room as the router (mac mini in the other room). Just... why is that enabled by default? And why does it impact performance? I don't know how to figure out which channels to use. I tried using that channel site tool, but it didn't help me much. I saw that my 5Ghz was on the lower end of the channels so 40 and up, (that's why I set ax1800 to 140 - other side), but I'm not sure if I fully understand it, and have to study it a bit more. I'm just gonna have it on auto for now. Which setting should I have on Mu-mimo? It has four different one. It's currently set to DL ofdma only, but there DL/UL ofdma and DL/UL odfma + mu-mimo. Then there's "802.11ax/ac Beamforming" which is enabled. Airtime fairness is disabled (which I read in another thread that should be disabled). What do you recommend, what are your settings?

All in all, I think I will perhaps get the AX11000 at a discount come black friday and leave the management of the dual 5GHz separation and channel selections to Asus-firmware, so I don't have to micro-manage and troubleshoot it myself everytime something is not as speedy as it should be (ie a neighbor gets a new router or whatever that's interfering). And when we move again, hopefully to a bigger place I can have the AX86U (which is too old to return, and selling an old router is just bound to lose me a ton of money since there's barely a market for it) and the AX11000 in an AIMesh configuration.

 

[drinkingbird]

That's a brilliant idea! I did what you suggested and set it in AP-mode, 5Ghz radio, different SSID, disabled universal beamforming, plugged into AX86U and chose channel 140, since my AX86U is on the other side of the spectrum. The ethernet cable is kinda short, so I had to place it two shelves under the AX86U which stands on the op the shelf. Probably not ideal, but best I could do with the cable at hand. Connected mac mini to the new SSID I named Infuse and left my Macbook Pro on the original AX86U ssid.

Yeah... don't know what went wrong there. Kept running the test perhaps 15 times. Sometimes it went down to 15mbps. I tried setting a different channel, same thing. I guess the routers are just too close to each other, that plus all the other interference around here.

That looks suspiciously like the link between the routers is coming up at 100M and not gig or possibly a duplex mismatch. Maybe an old CAT5 cable with only 4 wires instead of 8, or just a bad cable/connection. Check in the GUI on both and see what they're reporting for link speed, try a different cable etc.

So I packed the AX1800U up and will return it today together with the TP-Link. It also looked very cluttered, so even if it had given me the 700mbps it theoretically should have it would have been aesthetically unacceptable.



Can't do that. Would end up looking very bad on the book shelf with a router, a mac mini, cables dangling, four different harddrives connected. Everything needs to be tucked and hidden nicely away, so the only thing that goes on the shelf is the AX86U (after much discussion). It needs to be there because coincidentally that's where the modem outlets and everything is located. Everything else I have tucked away under the TV in the tv stand (semi-open solution, no drawers blocking wifi signal to mac mini)

Yeah just meant for testing you could try it, not a permanent solution.

I had no idea that was a thing. Indeed universal beamforming was enabled on my AX86U, so I disabled it on both radios, and now even without a direct line of sight I get 300mbps (macbook and mac mini in the same room, router in another)!!! That's quite the improvement. I even got 410mbps when my mac was in the same room as the router (mac mini in the other room). Just... why is that enabled by default? And why does it impact performance?

I guess because all their marketing includes beamforming so it is turned on by default. In theory it can get you better range especially if you have only a few devices all in the same direction from the router, but in reality with only 3 or 4 omnidirectional antennas, and many wireless devices, it often hurts more than helps. It is an old and crude version of beamforming. Even the explicit (AC/AX) beamforming can harm throughput in exchange for distance when used with only a few omni antennas, but most devices don't support it anyway (and it does work a bit better than the old universal version).

I don't know how to figure out which channels to use. I tried using that channel site tool, but it didn't help me much. I saw that my 5Ghz was on the lower end of the channels so 40 and up, (that's why I set ax1800 to 140 - other side), but I'm not sure if I fully understand it, and have to study it a bit more. I'm just gonna have it on auto for now.

Auto is probably your best bet if you just want to set it and forget it. Especially on 5ghz. Depending what region you're in, the router will usually first pick a non-DFS range (there are two in the US for 80mhz, some countries only have one). If you have both non-DFS ranges (36-48 and 149-161) then each should probably be on one of those. As long as the "control channel" falls into those ranges it will automatically use the rest as extension channels. In cases where you don't have two, or there is a lot of interference, then it will start using DFS ranges, which for some is not an issue, for others with radar interference, can be problematic. 36-48 can give you a tad better range but may be a tad less throughput, and 149-161 is the opposite, but the difference is negligible, more important to have one with less interference, which the router is pretty good at deciding on its own.

Which setting should I have on Mu-mimo? It has four different one. It's currently set to DL ofdma only, but there DL/UL ofdma and DL/UL odfma + mu-mimo. Then there's "802.11ax/ac Beamforming" which is enabled. Airtime fairness is disabled (which I read in another thread that should be disabled). What do you recommend, what are your settings?

Yes airtime fairness should be disabled, there are some remote cases where it can help but it will slow down each device in order to try and "share" better. For most home environments you don't want it. AX/AC beamforming can usually just be left enabled, most devices don't support it anyway and the ones that do it may help them. MU-MIMO sometimes you just have to try each one and see what works best for you, or disable it (it is another one where your devices have to support it for it to do anything). If you search here you'll find some threads on it. My old AC1900 doesn't support MIMO at all (so in my case, it is disabled aka non-existent). You'll find many that recommend just shutting it off, but in your case of doing large transfers between two devices it might actually help if they support MIMO or OFDMA. The goal of MIMO is to be able to have multiple clients doing high bandwidth stuff with less impact on each other.

All in all, I think I will perhaps get the AX11000 at a discount come black friday and leave the management of the dual 5GHz separation and channel selections to Asus-firmware, so I don't have to micro-manage and troubleshoot it myself everytime something is not as speedy as it should be (ie a neighbor gets a new router or whatever that's interfering). And when we move again, hopefully to a bigger place I can have the AX86U (which is too old to return, and selling an old router is just bound to lose me a ton of money since there's barely a market for it) and the AX11000 in an AIMesh configuration.

Seems like a plan. Though 400M wireless to wireless (or 300M even when in different rooms) is pretty good. If you don't want to start replacing your wireless cards with AXe or BE (wifi 6e or 7) or upgrading everything to 3 or 4 stream, the dual 5ghz radios may be your cheapest solution if you have to have more than that. You could try getting a router with 160mhz support but unless your clients support it, it would be pointless, and 160mhz can be very problematic in some areas, falling back to 80mhz and sticking there requiring you to reboot the router or run a script to bump it back up, or in some cases losing connectivity for several minutes while it scans for radar, etc. Getting 3 or 4 stream client cards helps a lot too but unless your laptop just happens to have an extra antenna that isn't connected, you'd need an external USB one which obviously isn't practical. The Mac Mini might be upgradable. A 2 stream talking to a 3 stream, honestly not sure if that would improve anything, if so not by very much.

 

[doczenith1]

Did you ever try adding -w 4M to the iperf3 command?

 

[torstein]

Did you ever try adding -w 4M to the iperf3 command?

I did right now, and it did increase performance... maybe? Perhaps 30-40mbps, not by much, but slightly. Also could have been normal fluctuations.

 

[drinkingbird]

I did right now, and it did increase performance... maybe? Perhaps 30-40mbps, not by much, but slightly. Also could have been normal fluctuations.

You can also try -P 4 or -P 8 (I like powers of 2) as that will overcome some of the extra latency of wireless and help saturate it better.

 

[follower]

Upload your router settings, Laptop NIC settings and connected Devices including STB, CCTV if you have.
Settings.(Screen Shots)
Wireless: General, Professional
LAN: IPTV
WAN: Internet connection. Virtual Server/Port Forwarding