Help me get my bandwidth!

August 8, 2006 2:14 PM

I just had (non-DSL, non-cable) internet access installed in my apartment through a local provider that has a T3 installed in my building. After install, I was getting 6MB/sec downloads, but the installer claimed I should be getting up to 35MB/sec, but my consumer-grade Linksys DSL router was unable to process that amount of throughput. 1. True? 2. Recommend a better router?

I'm using a 2-3 year old Linksys BEFSR41 EtherFast Cable/DSL Router, and I have 3 computers (and several other components like game consoles, etc.) hooked up to a Linksys 16 port Switch (also have a Linksys Wireless Access Point in the mix.)

The installer said that most consumer-grade routers simply aren't designed to process that much bandwidth, and that if I want to have maximum speed available to all systems, I would maybe need to consider an enterprise-class router.

If this is true, can someone recommend a model I should consider? I assume I won't be able to walk into Best Buy and lay down less than $100 like I did for my current router.

In addition to a more robust router, would I also need to upgrade my switch?

posted by robbie01 to computers & internet (13 comments total)

What kind of throughput do you get computer-to-computer on your internal network? I am lucky to clear 6MB (if by that you mean megabytes) per second myself. I generally attribute this to the computers, not the components in between.

Try downloading something on each of your 3 computers and see what the sustained total bandwidth is.

6 MB (whether you mean megabytes or megabits) is freaking awesome anyway, so quit your bitching ;)
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:28 PM on August 8, 2006

(And by the above I mean try downloading on all 3 computers at once and see what the aggregate speed is)
posted by RustyBrooks at 2:29 PM on August 8, 2006

Possible certainly, most consumer grade devices that incorporate packet inspection engines in software don't have processors fast enough to operate at speeds about 10mbps.

It's the packet inspection that kills you, you'll probably want to invest in a device capable of handling 30+mbps.


Your switch should be fine as long as it supports 100mbps full duplex to all interfaces, if it only supports 10mbps then you're out of luck there as well if you're looking to get above 10mbps throughput.
posted by iamabot at 2:30 PM on August 8, 2006

Linksys routers only have 10BASE-T (10Mbps) connectivity on the Internet side. Short of moving up to something enterprise-grade like the installer suggested, you could roll your own solution with an old PC, two Fast Ethernet NICs, and a distribution like Smoothwall. The BSDs have more robust networking IIRC, but Smoothwall and others like it are really easy to set up.
posted by djb at 2:33 PM on August 8, 2006

The tech recommended as a test I connect a PC directly to the WAN port he just installed, and I did indeed see a dramatic increase (30,200kbps down, 20,000kbps up, vs. about 5,900kps down when attached via router.)

So I guess a hardware upgrade is in my future... just not sure what to look for in terms of a model.
posted by robbie01 at 2:45 PM on August 8, 2006

A T-3 only provides 44.736Mbits (5.6MB/sec) throughput, also divide that number by all the other people in the building using the same circuit.
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 2:46 PM on August 8, 2006

Check out the Cyberguard (formerly SnapGear) series of routers. Their webmaster should be strung up by his heels (if they even have one), but their routers are very nice. Run Linux; good UI; good security; we've shipped a couple dozen in the last 4 years, and I don't think we've ever had one die, except to lightning, and only one of those.

As for "divide that number by the other people on the circuit", see also statistical multiplexing: if you're the only one clicking a link, you get the whole hose...

or as much as your router can handle.
posted by baylink at 2:52 PM on August 8, 2006

Right now the tech said only 5-6 other people in the building use the service (they've only promoted it via small snail-mail postcards), but I imagine new tenants moving in will consider it a major perk.
posted by robbie01 at 3:10 PM on August 8, 2006

Linksys routers only have 10BASE-T (10Mbps) connectivity on the Internet side

Can't you just use one of the LAN ports on your switch, and ignore the dedicated WAN port? (being aware that any firewall features will be bypassed).
posted by pompomtom at 3:18 PM on August 8, 2006

Run an NDT Netspeed test, going through your router, then hooked directly thrpough your switch, then directly into your bridge. Check the detailed "Statistics" and "More Details" popups. Save the outputs. Try a few different tests from a different NDT servers.

They will identify possible chokes, such as faulty cables, half-duplexing, 10 Mbps connections, and more obscure stuff such as receive or transmit buffers on your hardware limiting your max theoretical bandwidth, out-of-order packet arrival from upstream routers, and so on.

Standford's NDT.

If you have the right router, something like DD-WRT enables you to remap the ports and convert a LAN into a WAN port.

Most newish consumer routers, such as this one, support 10/100 on the WAN port.
posted by meehawl at 3:32 PM on August 8, 2006

First, while the older versions of the BEFSR41 had a 10 Mbit/sec interface on the WAN side, the current spec sheet (here) lists a 10/100 interface on the WAN side. According to this post, version 3 of the BEFSR41 is the one that introduced the 10/100 WAN port -- check the bottom of your router for the version number (it's usually printed somewhere near the model number on the sticker).

Second, contrary to the comment above, I've gotten reasonably good speeds between the 10/100 port on the WAN side and the 10/100 ports on the LAN side of my Linksys WRT54G -- I don't have any formal speed testing, but I've certainly gotten better than 10 Mbit/sec speeds. (I run the Sveasoft firmware, which might influence that, but I seem to recall the stock firmware doing fine as well.)

Third, make sure you have your units right between what your installer told you and what you're measuring. As dirtylittlemonkey said, T3s run at around 45 Mbit/sec, which is around 5.5 Mbytes/sec -- so make sure you're comparing apples to apples.

Fourth, whenever people suggest that you try to go through some way of converting LAN ports to WAN ports in order to achieve better speeds, remember one thing: usually, the reason you're not achieving the best speeds from WAN to LAN has nothing to do with the speed of the actual WAN port -- it's related to the speed which your router is able to inspect, process, and move packets from the WAN to the LAN. If you convert one of your LAN ports to a WAN port, but then enforce the same routing and packet inspection rules, then you've done absolutely nothing at all... because the new WAN port still has to go through the whole inspection/process/route ordeal, which is the bottleneck. (Specific note here: the Linksys WRT54G actually has a five-port switch inside it, meaning that the WAN port isn't physically or electronically separate from the LAN ports, just programatically separate. It's this separation that causes any slowdown, no matter which port you use as WAN.)

This is all to say: you should absolutely check your BEFSR41 version to see if you have a 10 Mbit/sec port (v1-2) or 10/100 port (v3+) on your WAN side. If you have a 10 Mbit/sec port, then either get a newer BEFSR41 or any other router that has a 10/100 port on the WAN side (you can usually look at the specs online, which are fairly clear on this point). If you have a 10/100 port, then chances are good that the speeds are either right, or limited somewhere other than your router/network.
posted by delfuego at 7:09 PM on August 8, 2006

You want a Cisco 7200. Expect to spend about $5000 for one via EBay.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:08 PM on August 8, 2006

Only thing I could find on the bottom of the router different than the model # printed on the front was "BEFSR41B", which would make me think I have rev. 2, but NOT the latest version 3.
posted by robbie01 at 8:50 PM on August 8, 2006