Router Suggestion Needed for 1 Gamer, 1 Youtube watcher

mapper

Honorable
Nov 27, 2013
3
0
10,510
0
I currently have this Linksys srx 200 WRT54GX2. Got this back in 2006 and only used it for about 6 months before I moved and haven't used since. Just haven't had the need to use it until now.

We have a 85MB/s cable connection but when I watch a youtube video and my buddy plays LOL or Diablo 3 he starts to lag pretty bad. We are both wired to the router. I even changed the QoS for him to have the highest priority based on MAC address but that doesnt even help. Am I to assume that this router just cant handle the routing traffic for the two of us?

Also our upload speed with is capped at 1MB/s when were plugged through the Linksys and 8MB/s when i plug directly to the modem. So anyways i know we need a new router.

Cant really afford a $300 router right now. Can anyone suggest something that will work for us. Routers is one thing I know very little about.

Is this D-Link any good? Should I just hold off until I can get a $300 or can a $60 one do us just fine?

After reviewing some routers particularly D-Link and people reporting them not working stable after 30 days of use & having to unplug it daily to get back on the internet. I want to avoid anything like that.
 
Gaming doesn't mix with downloading / stream watching. See examples of pings to tomshardware without youtube and with:

C:\>ping www.tomshardware.co.uk -n 10

Pinging e1151.e12.akamaiedge.net [2.19.145.189] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 2.19.145.189:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms

C:\>ping www.tomshardware.co.uk -n 10

Pinging e1151.e12.akamaiedge.net [2.19.145.189] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 2.19.145.189:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 81ms, Average = 34ms

C:\>ping www.tomshardware.co.uk -n 10

Pinging e1151.e12.akamaiedge.net [2.19.145.189] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=57
Reply from 2.19.145.189: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 2.19.145.189:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 86ms, Average = 41ms
So in one test ping average was up 47%, and in another it was up 78%.

Now factor in that gaming requires the ping be good pretty much all the time, and gaming server pings aren't generally as low as 20s or 30s to start with.

Try pinging the gaming server with and without Youtube running. Perhaps the server pings are bad to start with, and can only get worse.

Also suggest is you look at minimising the overall connection latency at your end of the network. Shorter, better cables and connectors. Less devices. Disable anything likely to use the network behind the scenes, such as automated updates.

Failing that, I suggest you setup a schedule. :D
 

mapper

Honorable
Nov 27, 2013
3
0
10,510
0


So in my first post, as I said, I set him with up high priority in QoS. Shouldnt it solve this issue though, it hasnt done anything? Cisco stopped supporting my Router like 10 years ago, so no more firmware updates. They dropped this Linksys like a bad habit. Thought having a new router with better QoS programming would certainly solve our problem.. Confused now. This router wasnt even that great when i came out in 2005.
 
Try the edgerouter X QoS it only works to about 100Mbs and it's only $50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-g2P3R84dw

A good system needs shaping and policing without starving any connection. This keeps your traffic moving and hungry connections are the ones getting throttled.

Only a few qdisc have both. fq_codel is the only one on a very limited amount of devices. ddwrt and open wrt have it if you can flash. If your cpu is old/slow it might not be able to keep up with 85Mbs. The ERX isn't expensive and it's very good. You will need to convert your old one into an access point so you can use wifi.
 
You really should not even need to use QoS. Watching video lets say takes 30mbps....which is a unlikely high number even for 4k video. That leaves 55mbps unused on your connection. A game maybe uses 1mbps most use far less.

Downloading stuff can use the full connection since they generally try to get it as fast as possible. Video only uses the bandwidth it needs....just like a game does not use the full connection.


It does not really make sense you are having problem when you are not overloading the connection. Maybe the router has a issue but generally the router would not be able to keep up with speedtest results either if it has issues.

Most the fancy 300 dollar routers are that expensive because of the wireless. Large numbers of fairly inexpensive routers can easily pass 1gbit of traffic between lan and wan on wired connections.
 


Bandwidth is not latency. Regardless of the amount of bandwidth being used on the connection, the connection's latency rises as it gets used. I can easily enjoy a 1080p Twitch stream on my 10 Meg connection because I have low latency.

However, a 1 Gig connection with unacceptable latency or jitter will be unusable for latency-critical applications, such as gaming or VoIP. The motorway might be wide and straight, but if you have traffic lights every 100 meters, your MPG will suffer.
 


I know very well that bandwidth is not latency. Your motorway example is not correct though. If I have 10 lanes of traffic available and only use 1 then traffic flowing in the other lanes will not be affected. If there is excess bandwidth then nobody waits at traffic lights they are always green.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS