- last edited on by
RogersMaude
Announced 13-December-2016 by @RogersDave http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/forums/forumtopicpage/board-id/Getting_connected/message-id/379...
Credit to @Hybrid_Noodle
Hitron website: http://www.hitron-americas.com/product/coda-4582/
Datasheet: http://www.hitron-americas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CODA-4582-Datasheet.pdf
60W Power Supply built into unit
Pictures of Hardware Version 1A:
***Added Labels***
Actually, NAT Acceleration switched off in a router would result at much higher speed loss than 100Mbps at Gigabit speeds, unless speed was originally quite low. What people forget, speed is not limited only by one's modem HW and FW, and neither by one's router. Many report that with rare exceptions, on consumer Windows PCs with CPU earlier gen than I5 and I7, wired speeds generally won't go higher 500-600 Mbps regardless of anything. And these numbers signify deeply optimized TCP stack, latest OS and Ethernet chipset drivers, all card packet processing offloads set On, carefully cleaned up system with minimal antimalware and traffic monitoring. Out of the "used box", on a Gigabit sub an older non-optimized system may easily max out at 150Mbps regardless of any modem and router choices, while most subscribers would probably still blame Rogers network "congestion" for slow speeds. 
Does anyone know what is exact config of Rogers Techs laptops, and what optimizations they run on them? I seen very impressive numbers these laptops can crunch on a DSLR speed test on a seemingly near clogged 1G sub as per subscriber equipment tests. Some commented, they bypass modem config speed restrictions either using special network login.
Keep in mind that @Prospect might not be running the gigabit plan. The 4582 can be used by anyone on an unlimited internet plan. So, with that in mind, its possible to run a slower data rate without Cut Through Forwarding or Flow Acceleration enabled in the router and stay fairly close to the original data rate that you see out of the modem itself. It depends of course on the number and type of functions running in the router. @Prospect would have to provide additional details on his or her internet plan and the type of functions that are currently enabled in the R7000 in order for me to take an educated guess as to what the problem might be.
Nope, going to disagree on this one "since consumer routers have quite effective hardware accelerated packets processing". We keep running into this again and again. This doesn't work as new users think it should and is simply not true for some, if not a good majority of routers. Hardware accelerated packet processing, at least in terms of straight throughput, is disabled on Broadcom based routers when any of the following functions are selected, QOS, Traffic Monitoring, Port Forwarding (?) and a few others that don't come to mind at the present time. Cut Through Forwarding is incompatible with those functions, and has been for a good many years. There isn't any debate about this issue at this point in time. When NAT Acceleration (CTF) is disabled you lose the fast path thru the router as the packets are routed to the processor, taking an initial througput hit, and then you take another throughput hit due to the user selected processing that occurs. So, the choice that one has to make, as the internet plans step up in data rates, is to run the router for speed, or functions. If you run a Broadcom based modem then you have to make a decision, speed or functions. If you want to run gigabit rates and run packet scans or any other type of user selected or security function, then processor horsepower is the only way that your going to be able to do this. You can't have both on a Broadcom based router. A pc based router might not make sense economically, but, if you're looking for throughput capability, security, and user selected functionality, that is most likely the only way that your going to achieve it. Just for heck of it, look at the Asus RT-AC5300, which runs a new Broadcom 1.8 Ghz 64 bit processor. The 1.8 Ghz rate isn't tremendously fast, but, maybe the 64 bit capability will result in fast performance if you want gigabit throughput plus functionality. For $449.99, you could probably build or buy a reasonable pc, running PfSense, OpenSense or Sophos and end up with wired performance that would beat any all-in-one router on the market, considering throughput and running security plus other functions.
Your "disagree" statement seems significantly broader in scope and narrower in HW choice than the boundaries you outlined in the quotes. I didn't limit the scope to always overheating Broadcom based routers in particular, while the solution works very well in my observation showing near 0% load at min processing and close to G wired speeds with custom FW with some other models. Interesting is, some custom FW better and deeper controls relevant chipset functionality than factory FW. Your excurse towards PC-router also complements what I said rather than opposes it, since I mentioned there is NO advantage to use a PC-router unless it carries in-depth packet inspections, usually covered by functionality of these packages you mentioned.
@HughR wrote:
My impression is that Anti-Virus software is the biggest performance sink.
Its quite difficult to find out where the network performance sink is on a Windows PC, I'm still trying. As you said it looks like everything is broader spec wise, but... it just won't add up to G network speeds in Windows, if your HW is not the last gen. Its possible that numerous chipsets drivers aren't optimized to work together, since on Mac network seems to work faster even with older HW, signaling better integration. Your TV seems to suffer from severe memory and CPU power deficiency, plus apps aren't updated for some older brands. 
@FITIMS can you have a look at the following post regarding modem wifi settings and looking at one's wifi environment and see if setting and channel changes might resolve some of the slow wifi issues. Note that beamforming is not enabled on the modem. That will probably increase the receive signal levels by a dbmw or two, but, that alone might help increase the data rates by one or two levels on the modulation and coding scheme:
http://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/Internet/slow-wifi/m-p/398557#M46745
@FITIMS, beamforming is not enabled in the 4582 modem and there are no plans to enable it. So, as a result, there is no user option available either. That is normally found on routers which use 802.11ac wifi, so, if you were to purchase a router, that would or should be available for use.
For the channel selection, I suspect that you are able to see numerous 2.4 Ghz networks that are present in your neighborhood. The problem in that case is to determine which of the channels 1, 6, or 11 have the least amount of competition, both in terms of the receive power level from other networks which might compete with your networks, and then number of networks on any of those channels. Ideally, for both the 2.4 and 5 Ghz networks, you would have somewhere around 40 to 45 dBmW, or greater separation in power levels between your network receive power level and that of the nearest competitors. At that amount of power separation, you can expect your network to operate normally. As that power level separation is reduced, depending on how far away those other networks are from your home, you will see increasing difficulties in running your own network. So, looking at a wifi analyzer, you're looking for a 2.4 channel, normally 1, 6, or 11 that offers that combination of fewer competitors and greatest level of separation in power levels from your network to the nearest other network. The same applies for the 5 Ghz channels in the channel 149 to 161 range that offers the same. Since the 5 Ghz channels have a shorter range you should see far less networks in the display.
In terms of running a wifi analysis my recommendation would the following devices to run the analysis:
1. The modem's built in wifi scanner
2. A laptop running inSSIDer
3. A smartphone app
The reasoning in this case is that the modem has three 2.4 antenna and four 5 Ghz antenna. A laptop usually has two antenna, sometimes three in the case of a higher end MAC, and sometime only 1, in the case of an everyday laptop. The smartphone might have one, maybe two antenna. What this all boils down to is the fact the number of antenna will determine how sensitive the device is, the greater the number of antenna, the better receive and transmit capability it will have, including the ability to see other networks that perhaps a single antenna smartphone or laptop can see.
If as you indicate, you can't see other 5 Ghz wifi networks, that could mean that you're in luck and there is no competition in the channel 149 to 161 range. Or, depending on the device that you are using, it might not be very sensitive to other network if its only running a single antenna, or, perhaps the device doesn't support 5 Ghz networks. I'm thinking specifically of laptops that only have 2.4 Ghz capability, and there are a good number of them around. We keep running into problems on the forum when new customers arrive with equipment that only supports 2.4 Ghz networks, much to their surprise and disappointment. If you fire up the Wireless Survey, which is located in the ADMIN .... DIAGNOSTICS tab, you should be able to very quickly determine if there are other 5 Ghz networks running nearby. The data is text only, but, if you copy that data, you can dump it into something like MS Excel and expand the channel and received power level data to determine if there is any other nearby competition and what channels in that 149 to 161 range are open. Typically there is a base channel, and extended channels. Users set the base channel and the modem or router takes care of the extended channel management. Any scanner should show the base channels that are in use.
Hope this helps.
What you will end up doing is competing with Kitty for Channel 157 air time. When a modem/router/user device is done with a channel, there is a pseudo random timer that runs in every device. The first device to time out wins the channel. That would occur in the case where the wifi receiver recognizes that the channel is occupied, even if it can't decrypt the data. In the case of the other users for channel 149, there is a chance that the wifi card will simply ignore them due to the power levels. The power level in this case puts 0 dbmw at the top and descends from there, so an increasing negative power level indicates less received power from that transmitter. Typically the best you will do from your own modem to device is in the range of -40 to -45 dbmw. I would say that Kitty must be your next door neighbor, from looking at the received power level on the modem.
So, the question comes down to the results on Channel 157, with nearby competition, versus running on 149 or 161. I would set the bandwidth to 80 Mhz and let the modem, in conjunction with the user device, determine what extension channel is in use for each broadcast. Run a speedtest, with 80 Mhz bandwidth for channels 149, 157 and 161 and choose the best of the three. Run that test at the location where you would typically use your laptop/tablet/smartphone. Use the www.speedtest.net Toronto or Montreal Rogers servers, depending on which is closer to your home. Those servers have the horsepower required to run gigabit speedtests . In terms of using 80 Mhz wide channels, for each broadcast, there is a clear channel check that is carried out by the receiving device. That check is requested by the transmitting device but, its actually done at the receiving end. Simply, the receiver determines if any of the extension channels required for 40 or 80 or 160 Mhz is occupied. If any of the extension channels are occupied, the transmitter will default down to 20, 40 or 80 Mhz wide channels. It depends on the user selected channel bandwidth and the results of the clear channel check. This is done for every transmission, so, it changes on the fly.
Fwiw, I'm also competing with my neighbors in that same channel 149 to 161 range. Despite that competition, I get better data rates, with the higher power outputs in that channel range than I do with the lower channels starting down at channel 36, which only run 50 or 200 mw for output power versus the 1 watt at the higher channel ranges. In the lower channel range, for my location, I have far less competition. Despite that, our wifi rates are higher in the higher channel ranges. To know that, one would have to run a test for both the low and higher channel ranges and run that test at a location where the devices in question are typically used. There will be a varience in the results as a result of the physical range from the modem to the user device. At some point, if you typically run the devices at closer ranges, you might find that it makes no difference between the low and high channel ranges, in terms of the speedtest results.
Some additional food for thought, I'm not sure if its available in your firmware version. In the WIRELESS .... ADVANCED settings, you might find a DFS setting. If its there, and you enable that, you will have access to the mid channel range between the low and high 5 Ghz channels. You might be the only one of the block. Here's a link to a site that shows the Dynamic Frequency Selection channels in Canada:
https://www.semfionetworks.com/blog/5ghz-band-channel-availability-in-canada
If that Dynamic Frequency Selection is available and you want to try it out, have a look at the following post:
I would try both 80 and 160 Mhz wide channels.
Unfortunately running a wifi network isn't just a matter of setting it up and letting it run itself. There is some level of knowledge required to fine tune the wifi settings and determine where the best operating channel might be, and that might take some experimentation. Changing the wifi settings will get you out of the slower rates that can occur with the default settings. From there, its a matter of determining what channel to use.
At the end of the day, if you live on wifi, strongly consider buying a router and running the modem in Bridge mode. My personal prefernce is for routers with external antenna. I would advise anyone running 500 Mb/s and higher to look for a router with the fastest processor available. To run higher data rates and any security features, and or plus VPNs, and other features will take a considerable amount of horsepower, compared to what we traditionally think of in terms of routers. So, strongly consider whats available with 1.8 Ghz procesors and go no lower than 1.4 Ghz processors. Also look for external antenna, which gets the antenna off of the motherboard and away from any shadowing effects that can be caused by the motherboard components.
-
512819 views
-
215 Likes
-
-
