hi router is an wrt54gl v1.1 with modified cfe from wrt54g v4 overcklocked to 263 mhz with sd mod on an 50/10mbit line iam using tomato Version 1.25.8515 .5 RAF ND Thor MOD since 2009 i have tested all tomato 1.28 mods with sdhc (slodki/shibby/teaman) and non sdhc from toastman ... coz i like the new features have on all the tested 1.28 mods 10 mbit lower download speeds with same basic settings and qos off i have no idea why any suggestions ? thor mod teaman 1.28.0020 tested with simultaneous linux distri downloads from different servers too ... same result :\ greetings from germany
Hi there! According to Victek's page, there's a special build focused on performance available: http://victek.is-a-geek.com/tomato.html http://victek.is-a-geek.com/Repositorios/TomatoRAF/Tomato_RAF_1.28.121006a.zip I'm not sure exactly /why/ that particular build seems to deliver such performance levels, but it might have something to do with the kernel version (v2.4.20, whereas all other K24 builds mentioned on your first post are probably using v2.4.37). Also, there might be at least one other thing, possibly specific to Teaman builds: the existence of IP Traffic (not absolutely sure about those other builds: i.e. if those do have ipt-account modules and/or if those are enabled). Long story short: when the firewall service 'starts' (i.e. firewall rules get loaded, once WAN is up), there's a few additional/extra rules being loaded on those recent Teaman builds: Code: root@top:/tmp/home/root# iptables -nvxL | grep account 847428 59635669 all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 account: network/netmask: 192.168.xxx.0/255.255.255.0 name: lan 5917 1254162 all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 account: network/netmask: 192.168.xxx.0/255.255.255.0 name: lan1 0 0 all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 account: network/netmask: 192.168.xxx.0/255.255.255.0 name: lan2 root@top:/tmp/home/root# You can see those on /etc/iptables (notice there are 3 rules, one for each LAN bridge I've set up on my router, yours might have just one...): Code: root@top:/tmp/home/root# cat /etc/iptables | grep account -A FORWARD -m account --aaddr 192.168.xxx.0/255.255.255.0 --aname lan -A FORWARD -m account --aaddr 192.168.xxx.0/255.255.255.0 --aname lan1 -A FORWARD -m account --aaddr 192.168.xxx.0/255.255.255.0 --aname lan2 root@top:/tmp/home/root# So, if you're curious about this whole thing... and willing to check/test if these might be related to your case, there's something you could try... First, wait for WAN to come online (let those 'regular' firewall rules be loaded on router). Then, log in via telnet/SSH and run the following commands: Code: root@top:/tmp/home/root# cat /etc/iptables | grep -v account > /tmp/iptables root@top:/tmp/home/root# iptables-restore < /tmp/iptables root@top:/tmp/home/root# Basically, you'd be simply reloading all your iptables/firewall (except for those rules related to network traffic accounting)... And.... please let us know if their presence/absence improves and/or changes your results in any way Thanks!
hi teaman the victek Tomato RAF 1.28.121006 build is slower too .... have testet it several months ago i will check the iptables rules tomorrow with your last build and report the result perhaps it has something to do with ppoe ?!
Just remembered something else you might just wanna test/check: your current NAT target could make a difference... (SNAT or MASQUERADE, on Advanced/Firewall). Cheers!
hi with stock tomato 1.28 i get full speed too with slodki builds also ... only that built based on tomatousb 1.28.8754 is 5-7 mbit slower
I've noticed something similar, but because my line speed is so low I noticed it in other ways. I'm using a wrt54gl. I've been using this version of Tomato http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/speedmod-with-tc-atm-qos-patch-for-adsl.31541/ (it's a 1.28 mod for K24) and now switched to the new Toastman builds (K24). For some reason they are noticably slower. Logging in via ssh doesn't take 2-3s anymore, but 5-7s. Loading webpages has gotten slower too, even with QoS deactivated and no other traffic on the line. I've measured the times and it takes 1.5 to 2 times more the time than before to load a webpage. Because everything seems to be affected I suspect some change in the kernel.
Hi there! I've been thinking about all this... trying to figure out some kind of possible (co)relation?... but still wondering... (as per previous post): Which kernel versions are running on each of those versions/builds (i.e. 'faster' x 'slower' results)? v2.4.20.x or v2.4.37.x ? Also - is there any difference between builds with the 'old' (standard) versus 'new' wireless driver (ND)? Did you guys notice anything else 'in common' (or different) between these builds X results? Cheers!
looks like nd and non nd doesn't matter no difference with tomato-sdhc-ND-1.28.01 and tomato-sdhc-1.28.01 thor mod have kernel 2.4.20
Ok, then... so it looks like things seem to boil down between builds running kernel v2.4.20.x and v2.4.37.x? Is that the key difference? Or... perhaps something else?
hi teaman seems to be that the kernel is the cause incidentally Tomato_RAF_1.28.121006 makes full speed too ... must be a failure by me :\ sry some dmesg from the various builds i think u know your own build
There's a somewhat old build still available for download - if I'm not mistaken, this particular build ships with kernel v2.4.20: http://tomato-sdhc-vlan.googlecode.com/files/tomato-sdhc-vlan-1.28.7z Feel free to give it a try (and let us know how it goes), but keep in mind these images have been built more than 6 months ago and... probably won't support some of the most recent features (i.e. MultiSSID, IP Traffic, etc...). Any specific features you've been looking to run on a build with kernel v2.4.20?
Just wanted to give everybody an example of what slower means. I've been using StableNet Express as a monitoring tool. It can monitor loading times of different sites. You can see the results in the attached screenshot. If I'm not mistaken the the from 2.4.20 to 2.4.37 occured somewhere in 2009. It would be very interesting to see, how the K26 builds do on a wrt54gl, but I haven't had enough motivation to check this, too.
hi teaman http://tomato-sdhc-vlan.googlecode.com/files/tomato-sdhc-vlan-1.28.7z does full speed dl it would be nice to have always the last build also with kernel 2.4.20 for older devices like the wrt54g's if possible if is to much work to do it allways i need only the tomato-WRT54G_WRT54GLUSB-1.28.0021Teaman-SDHC-VLAN-VPN build ... usb is not realy needed but i like the smb and ftp service thx @ porter tested 4 u victek tomato-K26-1.28.8603MIPSR1_RAF-Std it performes like the kernel 2.4.37 builds, same slow dl speed
Cool - glad to hear that! Unfortunately, having always the last build also with kernel v2.4.20 is not really an option at this moment... If I remember correctly, IP Traffic was the main reason I ended up switching everything onto kernel v2.4.37 builds - I couldn't make that module 'compile' under v2.4.20 What else is out there? Since there's not many of these older routers capable of doing MultiSSID, there's seems to be not much of a point in having them upgraded with the lastest MultiLAN GUI, don't you think? Also, if the main goal would be... speed, then I wonder: are there any of those new/updated features that would really be useful/interesting to have on a build specific to run on such routers? Cheers!
The question remains what's slowing down our routers. Does anyone have a clue what could be the reason for 2.4.37 to be slower? The simplest comparison might be to do a diff of the two different configs and see what changed...
if I use the firmware with K2.4.37 from RAF 1.28.8515 ND Std NoUSB, website response took a noticeable some seconds, tried the firmware with K2.4.20 from RAF 1.28.121006 runs responsive. how about others?
