On Tuesday 28 Mar 2017 23:00:12 Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On mar. 28 mars 21:19:29 2017, Jorge Almeida wrote: > > Which part is to blame? The secondary router boasts 1300Mbps on 5GHz > > WiFi, so I assumed it could deal with 150Mbps on cat5e ethernet cable. > > The power consumption is about 4.5w, which seems a bit flimsy. > > Or maybe the primary router is thottling speed when in bridge mode? Is > > this possible at all? (And if so, what could be the purpose of such > > measure? *spooky*) > > You will never reach 1300Mbps on Wi-Fi, it’s some commercial bullshit. > First of all, check if you have a gigabit switch on your TP-link, it’s > not impossible to have a 100M one. And, if you have a gig switch, use an > RJ45 cable, the only cheap and efficient medium if you need bandwidth and > latency. . As Alarig says, 802.11ac rarely sees more than 200Mbps in real life, over short distances, with no interference and only a single client connected. Through walls you're better off with 2.4GHz
Assuming the switch ports on the router are 1Gpbs, check on the PCs and on the router that it is operating in Full Duplex mode, both on the bridged modem side and on the PC side. Replace the Cat5e cables if it is not and try again. Finally, I have experienced some domestic routers coming to their knees at high throughput. Their SoC does not have the capability to process packets through the firewall and perform routing without becoming the bottleneck in the network. Both throughput and latency increases in these cases. The only solution is to buy better quality hardware. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
