Joined: 07 Dec 2010 Posts: 131 Location: Sheffield, UK
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:31 Post subject:
SiimK wrote:
Anyone else having the router CPU load 100%?
Web UI and Internet browsing is very slow and finally crashes. Have to reboot my router and it wors fine for some time and all starts again.
Certainly not me, its the lowest load average out of the three versions of DD-WRT I have used so far.
Are you using PPPoE perhaps? _________________ 2xWZR-HP-G300NH(B) (B0 B0) DD-WRT v24-sp2 (06/14/11) std 17201
One antenna swapped for an RP-SMA connector and 14dB external Yagi.
http://csdprojects.co.uk/ddwrt/
Is anyone having trouble with USB Automounting? After upgrading, my WRT160nl keeps mounting both my ext3 partitions to /mnt causing most of my scripts to blow. I thought automount would only mount the first partition it finds?
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 Posts: 131 Location: Sheffield, UK
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 16:44 Post subject:
How come the WHR-HP-G300N can go that powerful? I thought that was one of the big selling points between that and the NH? _________________ 2xWZR-HP-G300NH(B) (B0 B0) DD-WRT v24-sp2 (06/14/11) std 17201
One antenna swapped for an RP-SMA connector and 14dB external Yagi.
http://csdprojects.co.uk/ddwrt/
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 7401 Location: Little Rock
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 21:06 Post subject:
alexatkinuk wrote:
How come the WHR-HP-G300N can go that powerful? I thought that was one of the big selling points between that and the NH?
Thats like apples and oranges here, those 2 buffalo units have totally different hardware. In terms of which has more under the hood, the wzr-hp-g300nh still has more under the hood and smallnetbuilder rated that it is higher powered over the other units, they use lxchariot to test with, which to me is much better at rating wireless router performance. So no worries. _________________ Wireless N Config | Linking Routers | DD-WRT Wiki | DD-WRT Builds | Peacock - Broadcom FAQ
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 Posts: 131 Location: Sheffield, UK
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:25 Post subject:
buddee wrote:
alexatkinuk wrote:
How come the WHR-HP-G300N can go that powerful? I thought that was one of the big selling points between that and the NH?
That's like apples and oranges here, those 2 buffalo units have totally different hardware. In terms of which has more under the hood, the wzr-hp-g300nh still has more under the hood and smallnetbuilder rated that it is higher powered over the other units, they use lxchariot to test with, which to me is much better at rating wireless router performance. So no worries.
Well the biggie for me was RAM and Gigabit ethernet anyway, so the NH was important there.
However I always thought transmit power was transmit power, period, apart from perhaps some small differences caused by receive sensitivity and noise tolerance.
Particularly as the lower model has a removable antenna and the NH does not its rather insulting for it to have such short range, especially as DD-WRT is the stock firmware on this model in Europe. How they can still call it high power on the box but its actually performing lower power than almost every other router on planet, is beyond me.
Free DD-WRT its fair enough for it to have rough edges, but Buffalo should not be putting a version on as stock that doesn't deliver what is printed on the box. They really take the biscuit with high power, DLNA and BitTorrent all on the box but missing from the firmware. Even NAS is arguable as I wouldn't call anything a NAS that doesn't have Samba on it, why on earth did they remove that when DD-WRT normally has it?
Mind you, what more do we expect from a company that has a model called WHR-HP-GN that isn't actually N at all. I consider myself a techie but still was fooled thinking that was a genuine N device, until I read otherwise today.
Ah well, I just hope the DD-WRT with the better drivers turns up soon, would really love to not be having to use my Fonera+ to receive WiFi across the street. That is not a dig at DD-WRT, but a dig at the Fonera+ for being such a limited pile of crap - all I want is access to my LAN from across the road, is that too much to ask FON? Noo, it demands to be a second NAT even though the UK Fonera runs a L2TP tunnel for FON users so there is no reason at all not to allow it to run via the LAN side. _________________ 2xWZR-HP-G300NH(B) (B0 B0) DD-WRT v24-sp2 (06/14/11) std 17201
One antenna swapped for an RP-SMA connector and 14dB external Yagi.
http://csdprojects.co.uk/ddwrt/
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 7401 Location: Little Rock
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 2:38 Post subject:
alexatkinuk wrote:
buddee wrote:
alexatkinuk wrote:
How come the WHR-HP-G300N can go that powerful? I thought that was one of the big selling points between that and the NH?
That's like apples and oranges here, those 2 buffalo units have totally different hardware. In terms of which has more under the hood, the wzr-hp-g300nh still has more under the hood and smallnetbuilder rated that it is higher powered over the other units, they use lxchariot to test with, which to me is much better at rating wireless router performance. So no worries.
Well the biggie for me was RAM and Gigabit ethernet anyway, so the NH was important there.
However I always thought transmit power was transmit power, period, apart from perhaps some small differences caused by receive sensitivity and noise tolerance.
Particularly as the lower model has a removable antenna and the NH does not its rather insulting for it to have such short range, especially as DD-WRT is the stock firmware on this model in Europe. How they can still call it high power on the box but its actually performing lower power than almost every other router on planet, is beyond me.
Free DD-WRT its fair enough for it to have rough edges, but Buffalo should not be putting a version on as stock that doesn't deliver what is printed on the box. They really take the biscuit with high power, DLNA and BitTorrent all on the box but missing from the firmware. Even NAS is arguable as I wouldn't call anything a NAS that doesn't have Samba on it, why on earth did they remove that when DD-WRT normally has it?
Mind you, what more do we expect from a company that has a model called WHR-HP-GN that isn't actually N at all. I consider myself a techie but still was fooled thinking that was a genuine N device, until I read otherwise today.
Ah well, I just hope the DD-WRT with the better drivers turns up soon, would really love to not be having to use my Fonera+ to receive WiFi across the street. That is not a dig at DD-WRT, but a dig at the Fonera+ for being such a limited pile of crap - all I want is access to my LAN from across the road, is that too much to ask FON? Noo, it demands to be a second NAT even though the UK Fonera runs a L2TP tunnel for FON users so there is no reason at all not to allow it to run via the LAN side.
Well think of it like this, the WHR-HP-G300N is a 2x2 mimo N router, whereas the NH is a 3x3 mimo N router, so not only does it have gigabit ports with usb, it has more antennas which is more efficient in the way it does what it does. That already is gonna make it to where it wouldn't have to have a higher dBm/dBi rating to perform efficiently. _________________ Wireless N Config | Linking Routers | DD-WRT Wiki | DD-WRT Builds | Peacock - Broadcom FAQ
Can confirm this with 1043nd, the trendnet now stays in the wifi config with his mac and 54tx, 104tx but get no data. I can ping the trendnet with wifi but cannot open his webgui.The bug seems to change
