D-Link Forums

The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers => DIR-857 => Topic started by: shm0 on February 07, 2014, 11:37:28 AM

Title: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 07, 2014, 11:37:28 AM
hey guys!
i finally managed to modify the 1.04 firmware to allow QoS on more then 2Mbit Upload. (Raised to 20mbit)

Proof:

(http://s7.directupload.net/images/140207/temp/io2r555p.jpg) (http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3526/io2r555p_jpg.htm)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B87wL7scXNdhdWwxTjFDb1JocE0/view?usp=sharing

Use at your own risk im not responsible for any bricked devices.

If you where brave enough to test, please share your experience.

I posted these files on my google drive for users to download:
DIR-857:
Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B87wL7scXNdhV0ZoQW5ObzdOSEk/view?usp=sharing)

DIR-655 Rev B Only:
Firmware v2.11 QoS Mod (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B87wL7scXNdhdWwxTjFDb1JocE0/view?usp=sharing)

Please follow this for applying FW updates: Link> >FW Update Process (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=42457.0)

Furry
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 07, 2014, 11:51:52 AM
How did you effect this? Is this built on NA region FW or EU region FW?

Thanks for sharing...I Might give this a go if this is on NA FW.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 07, 2014, 12:08:36 PM
I used the 1.0 Source/Toolkit.
Extracted the files from 1.04 firmware.

In the Source there are two folders. One for the romfs and one for vendor specific files.
replaced every file in both folders with the files from 1.04.

Run a make romfs and make image to get the bin.

It is based on the 1.04b9 from DLink CA Site. Hower the eu 1.04 firmware is the same. (Same Hash)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 07, 2014, 12:21:20 PM
Awesome, I'll give this a go...What did you change to effect the 2Mb Uplink cap?

Curious, would you be able to do this for the DIR-827 and 657 maybe?  ???
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 07, 2014, 01:33:00 PM
I just changed the script that initializes the QoS Engine and the QoS Webpage to allow higher Upload.

I guess that should be possible also for other devices.

But first this needs good testing if there is any negative impact.
Please also report how it is working for you.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 07, 2014, 01:37:37 PM
Ok, will give this a go this weekend and see.

What code is exactly changed. Please feel free to post.

Thanks for doing this and sharing.

I'll recommend that users seeing this be aware that this is not a official release of FW and is not supported by D-Link and may invalidate any warranties users may have on the router. This is a un-supported modification.
If users choose to try this, please use the FW Update Process. (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=42457.0)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 07, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
It is the same change as i did on the 1.0 firmware. the thread must be somewhere here.


Code: [Select]
if [ $RATEEST_RETURN_VALUE -ne "0" ] ; then
echo Rate estimation failed - streamengine shaper will not start
/etc/init.d/se_unload
STREAMENGINE_SHAPER_LOADED=0
else
#
# If the detected speed is > 2000000 (2mbps) then we disable the shaper.
#  - we assume there is enough upstream bandwidth so as not to need a shaper
#
TX_RATE_BPS=$(cat /sys/devices/system/ubicom_streamengine/ubicom_streamengine0/ubicom_streamengine_calculated_rate)
if [ $TX_RATE_BPS -gt 2000000 ] ; then
cp -rf /sys/devices/system/ubicom_streamengine/ubicom_streamengine0/ubicom_streamengine_calculated_rate /var/tmp/ubicom_streamengine_calculated_rate.tmp
echo Streamengine shaper disabled: WAN speed greater than 2mbps detected
/etc/init.d/se_unload
STREAMENGINE_SHAPER_LOADED=0
else
#
# Enable shaper with optional dynamic fragmentation
#
#config_get DYN_FRAG_ENABLED streamengine qos_dyn_fragmentation
DYN_FRAG_ENABLED=$(nvram get qos_dyn_fragmentation | cut -c25- -)
/etc/init.d/se_shaper_set $DYN_FRAG_ENABLED auto
fi
fi
fi

just change the part

if [ $TX_RATE_BPS -gt 2000000 ] ; then

to some higher value. in this case 2000000 to 20000000

and then change the check in the adv_qos.asp. basically the them from 2048 to 20480.
im to lazy to boot the vm up again to post the exact code.
i will do it later. im tired and going to bed now ;)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 07, 2014, 01:47:15 PM
Awesome. I think I moved it into the Archives. I know theres a DIR-645 that someone did a mod on as well for L2TP connections.

I'll give this a go and report findings as I'm on a 3Mb uplink now with my ISP.

Have a good night.  ;)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 07, 2014, 04:29:30 PM
Ok so I uploaded the mod file:
It's seeing my 3Mb Uplink speed when TS is enabled and set for Automatic:
Enable Traffic Shaping :     
Automatic Uplink Speed :     
Measured Uplink Speed :   3371 kbps 

ISP speeds look good too, however the uplink test drops from 3Mb to 2.5~2.4Mb during testing. This could be that it's during peak hours now here:
Last Result:
Download Speed: 52422 kbps (6552.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 2462 kbps (307.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2014‎ ‎5‎:‎26‎:‎08‎ ‎PM

Will be playing xbox tonite with 2 boxes gaming. Will see how it works.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 08, 2014, 04:56:54 AM
I have 5Mbit Upload and set the Upload Speed for QoS to 5120.
On speedtests i get around ~ 4,8 Mbit. Seems fine for me.
Some upload gets lost by overhead and maybe the qos engine is also limiting it further to have some headroom. I know from other QoS Setup that Upload limit should be set to ~90 % of the total upload speed.
Maybe the engine is doind that internally dunno.

I think your are on cable right? As you said it can be possible that on peak hours that you dont get your maxiumum speeds, cause cable is shared medium.

anyways for my quick test its running fine. lets see how it goes.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 08, 2014, 10:24:52 AM
So checking again this morning, I'm still seeing the sustained uplink test kick down from 3Mb to 2.5Mb shortly before the test ends. I don't notice this on a different router thats has a DIR-645 class Traffic Shaper that supports over 2Mb speeds. So I presume the TS is doing this. I do need to test with my PC out of the QOS rule I have setup.  ::)

Last Result:
Download Speed: 52156 kbps (6519.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 2567 kbps (320.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2014‎ ‎11‎:‎18‎:‎16‎ ‎AM

Over all it working good though. We played Ghosts for hours last night and didn't see any issues while both xboxes were online. OPEN NAT. Gaming was good.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 08, 2014, 11:15:03 AM
Try with only automatic classification.

for me it its going slowly from 0 to 4.8 MBits. And i have no drops on end of the test. which test did you use?

Does your ISP use some kind of bursting for upload?

Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 08, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
Ok will try when I get home. No on isp processing.
Mines thru the isp ao it does there own test then they automatically connect to speedtest.net and run a test there. Ill go back and run my own w speedtest.net and see.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 08, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
Ok so running direct to speedtest.net I got a sustained 3Mb with out a kick down:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3292764597.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3292764597)

I presume there is something on the ISP side maybe doing something during testing. This is with my PC in a QoS rule and outside as well. Seems to work...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 08, 2014, 03:30:30 PM
okay seems looking good.

can you do some heavy uploading (ftp transfer or upload test) and check your latency at the same time?
With QoS enabled and without to compare them?

You assigned your pc a qos rule? so every traffic gets the same priority? i think this is same kind of suboptimal. maybe you should assign qos rules on port basis rather then ip basis.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 09, 2014, 11:28:13 AM
I'll give that a try....I don't do much FTP however I'll check for consistency on uplink speeds and ping...

Reason for assigning based on IP is that in my house I prefer to have the gaming consoles set for high priority(50) and all other devices set for normal(128) while gaming is going on. Seems to work and still allows all other devices to get internet well..

How do you have our rules set up? How is the QOS rule set up for ports?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 09, 2014, 11:44:19 AM
im lazy and use the automatic classification ;)

but for manual setup:

create one rule to put everything in default class 255.
for that you leave everything at default.
local ip range 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255
remote ip range 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255
local port range 0 - 65535
remote port range 0 - 65535
just change priority to 255.

for the other rules.
leave local and remote ip, local port range at default.
change the remote port range to the port(s) you wand to QoS. like 80 for http.
and assign a priority.

you do this for every service you dont want to put in the default class with priority 255.
assing each service a priority class that makes sense. like gaming and real time services i would give a priority of 50.

but i think that hassle isnt worth it. the automatic classification works just fine.


Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 09, 2014, 12:02:07 PM
Kewl, thanks for the details.

Ya, seems a bit more harder to set up that way...good info though.

Soon as I get time with the router and not body is online, I'll test QoS again and post.

Ya, looking good so far...I have have to pose this mod question to my admin and see if it's ok for us to post this and make sure they are ok with it. We do understand that it's not supported and it's a mod and as long as users understand this can void any warranties with D-Link support, I think D-Link will ok with this here in the forums. I guess if D-Link isn't going to do any changes in the EU region, I need to find out if the NA region will do anything since they do handle things differently here. I have asked about it and haven't received much in information about it so I presume that nothing maybe done with it officially. This seems like they could do it however there maybe other issues behind the scenes, problems or issues that may prevent this that we don't know about. Keep your source files handy though. This seems like a nice mod to help get over the cap on the Uplink. If the 857 testing done well, I might have you check out the 827 and 657 FW as well as those have the same TS engine.  :-\

Thanks for all your time and efforts.  ;)

Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 09, 2014, 12:25:16 PM
Ping test with TS/QoS enabled, PC rule set for normal priority of 128;
(http://www.pingtest.net/result/93112812.png) (http://www.pingtest.net)

Speedtest:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3294652956.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3294652956)

Router status:
Measured Uplink Speed :   3358 kbps

Ping test with TS/QoS Disabled:
(http://www.pingtest.net/result/93113144.png) (http://www.pingtest.net)

Speedtest:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3294661035.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3294661035)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 10, 2014, 01:59:44 AM
Thanks for posting mate.

can you please do

ping somehostyouknowthathastable.com -n 1000

in a cmd window

and then do some uploading and watch if your ping raises?
One time with QoS on and one time with QoS off.
And only using Automatic Classification.

Without Qos i get around 150ms pings with it on it stays below 50ms. So far so good.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 12, 2014, 04:04:46 PM
Ok so I sent an email from one web email to another with an attached 15Mb file:
C:\Windows\system32>ping www.speedtest.net -n 1000

Pinging cs62.adn.edgecastcdn.net [72.21.92.82] with 32 byt
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 72.21.92.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 72.21.92.82:
    Packets: Sent = 67, Received = 67, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 101ms, Average = 59ms
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 13, 2014, 02:57:32 AM
Thank you.

Was this with QoS and Automatic Classification on? The Spikes to 100ms doesnt look that good.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: fousa on February 13, 2014, 06:26:11 AM
I used the 1.0 Source/Toolkit.
Extracted the files from 1.04 firmware.

Sorry to bother, can you explain more about the source/toolkit ?

I want to do similar with DCS-2332L IP camera, increasing the maximum recording size...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 13, 2014, 06:35:59 AM
Eh, now that you mention it, I'll need to check again, I forgot to look, LOL. Believe they were on.  :-[


Thank you.

Was this with QoS and Automatic Classification on? The Spikes to 100ms doesnt look that good.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: JavaLawyer on February 13, 2014, 07:14:47 AM
The DCS-2332L GPL Source can be downloaded here: http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/ (http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 13, 2014, 07:17:11 AM
Please carry this post over to the DCS-2332L forum.

Thank you.

Sorry to bother, can you explain more about the source/toolkit ?

I want to do similar with DCS-2332L IP camera, increasing the maximum recording size...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 13, 2014, 06:17:06 PM
Enable Traffic Shaping :    Check
Automatic Uplink Speed :     Check
Measured Uplink Speed :      3358 kbps
Connection Type :    
Detected xDSL Or Other Frame Relay Network :      Cable Or Other Broadband Network
QoS Engine Setup
Enable QoS Engine : Check   
Automatic Classification :      Check
Dynamic Fragmentation : Un-Checked
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 16, 2014, 10:41:46 PM
Mayne the measured uplink speed of 3358 is a bit high. try with 3072 and test if the ping raised above 100ms.

The Toolkit for the DCS-2332L is not the same as for the DIR857.
However it should be still possible to mod the DCS-233L.
How do you notice the recording limit?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 17, 2014, 07:44:44 AM
 ??? Mayne? Maybe?

So manually set 3072? This is what the router is automatically detecting after it does it's check.

Not sure what you mean here.

Please carry posts over to the DCS-2332L forum regarding FW mods. I don't want to confuse this thread.

Thank you.

Mayne the measured uplink speed of 3358 is a bit high. try with 3072 and test if the ping raised above 100ms.

The Toolkit for the DCS-2332L is not the same as for the DIR857.
However it should be still possible to mod the DCS-233L.
How do you notice the recording limit?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 17, 2014, 12:52:19 PM
yes i mean maybe. sorry was to early in the morning.
yep set 3072 manually.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 17, 2014, 12:53:47 PM
Ok...I'll give that a try. Hoping this will all work out so you can maybe do a mod for the 827 and 657.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 17, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
Ok set the following and rebooted:
Wired only 1 PC to the router...
Enable Traffic Shaping :     Checked
Automatic Uplink Speed :  Un-Check   
Measured Uplink Speed :   3072 kbps 
Manual Uplink Speed :     3072 kbps  <<   Select Transmission Rate 128 kbps 256 kbps 384 kbps 512 kbps 1024 kbps 2048 kbps 
Connection Type :     Auto-detect xDSL Or Other Frame Relay Network Cable Or Other Broadband Network 
Detected xDSL Or Other Frame Relay Network :   Cable Or Other Broadband Network 

C:\Users\Robear>ping cableone.net -n 1000

Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=247
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 38, Received = 38, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 59ms, Maximum = 81ms, Average = 61ms

Sending 15Mb file to my email account to my self.  ::)

(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3313377514.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3313377514)

Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 18, 2014, 12:44:04 PM
thanks mate.
looks better i think. ;D
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 18, 2014, 12:47:14 PM
So how would we set this up for detailed instruction? I presume that if the mod is in place, and to get good ping times, we need to set a manual uplink speed? Just want to get this iron out so we can put this into a detailed sticky post...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 19, 2014, 09:12:51 AM
For most people automatic classification will be enough i think.
For the uplink speed i would suggest to set it to isp advertised speed.
1 MBit/s = 1024 kbit/s

For example you have 3Mbit Upload. 3 x 1024 = 3072
so you enter 3072 in the box.
for 5 Mbit: 5120

and so on.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 19, 2014, 09:55:15 AM
Ok sounds good. I think I'll make this a sticky.

Care to do the mod for the 655 next? I can test that out. I've got another guy testing his 857 out now.

If you do build the others, lets keep this thread going here regarding it.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on February 20, 2014, 10:51:12 PM
Sorry for the late reply. Im quite busy at work atm and for the next week also. i will do this by next week weeks end.

Should be quite easy to do i think. Because they both use the ubicom distro.

Sure you could test it. but there is always a chance to brick the device.
I think there was a emergency recovery, but i have to check that.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 21, 2014, 07:26:54 AM
No rush on this.

As long as you compile the FW using the same process, bricking should be null.

Emergency Recovery Mode (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=44909.0)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: kargo27 on February 27, 2014, 07:09:17 AM
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3336000201.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3336000201)

Mine is working fine as well.  I had to keep Short GI enabled but I had to do that with the other FW, too, or else experience dropped wifi signals requiring a router reboot.

Ping results:

Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 47 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 47 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 47 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 51 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 56 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 44 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 45 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 48 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 47 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 45 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 51 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 52 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 55 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 44 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 52 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 54 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 49 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 44 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 48 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 60 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 49 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 45 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 44 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 49 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 48 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 50 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 45 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 50 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 52 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 52 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 52 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 44 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 100 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 122 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 83 milliseconds. TTL = 53
Response from google.com received in 46 milliseconds. TTL = 53
User stopped
Pings sent: 47
Pings received: 47
Pings lost: 0 (0% loss)
Shortest ping time (in milliseconds): 44
Longest ping time (in milliseconds): 122
Average ping time (in milliseconds): 51
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 27, 2014, 07:32:44 AM
Awesome Kargo, Looks good...

And to confirm, as you were pinging, you sent something via email or to some place while the pinging was going on?


I think this is a stable mod.

Your Short GI issue maybe surrounding WiFi congestion in your area. I've been leaving GI enabled on my routers now, however disabling HT20/40Mhz C0-Existence now if using single mode N only.  ;D
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 25, 2014, 05:31:27 PM
DIR-827 Results:

Auto TS Uplink and QoS enabled-
Initial Measured Uplink Speed :   2886 kbps  (May have been my interference by opening my browser at the time of testing.)

ISP Test: 50Mb Down and 3Mb ISP Service
Time time was during peak hours.
Last Result:
Download Speed: 52763 kbps (6595.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 1880 kbps (235 KB/sec transfer rate) Gets up towards 2.5 then kicks down towards the end of the test.
3/25/2014 5:43:54PM

Speedtest.net
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3395870318.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3395870318)

Diff. Server:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3395872031.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3395872031)

Manual TS Uplink and QoS Enabled-
Manual Uplink Speed : 4096 kbps

ISP Download Speed: 52603 kbps (6575.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 2909 kbps (363.6 KB/sec transfer rate) No kick downs seen.
3/25/2014 5:50:28PM
Last Result:
ISP Download Speed: 52576 kbps (6572 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 3131 kbps (391.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
3/25/2014 5:50:56 PM

Speedtest.net
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3395879669.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3395879669)

Diff. Server:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/3395880966.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3395880966)


Ping Tests-
With Auto Uplink:
Enable Traffic Shaping :     
Automatic Uplink Speed :     
Measured Uplink Speed :   3359 kbps
Emailing 15Mb file attachment via web mail.
C:\>ping cableone.net -n 1000

Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 69, Received = 69, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 151ms, Average = 91ms

Manual Uplink: 4096 kbps
C:\>ping cableone.net -n 1000
Emailing 15Mb file attachment via web mail.

Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 63, Received = 63, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 149ms, Average = 95ms
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 26, 2014, 10:28:12 AM
I think the Measured Uplink is too high. Because of that there is no headroom and ping spikes over 100ms. Try with 3072 again pls.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 26, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Will do. Thanks for the corrective Uplink value.  ;)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 26, 2014, 10:36:36 AM
Thanks :D

Maybe there are ways to tweak this so it gets even better. Will check on weekend when i have more time.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 26, 2014, 10:40:01 AM
Sounds good.

We'll need to get this iron out so I can give details on how to use the setting. I presume fore now that manually setting the Uplink value should be at or near what users are paying for on there ISP uplink speeds? Not higher then that?  ???
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 26, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
I think the upload measurement maybe only works accurate for Upload Speeds below < 2 Mbits.

So Yes set the Upload Speed to the advertised speed of your isp plan. (Maybe verify with some speed test site that you can get the speeds. Disable QoS before testing and stop all other traffic.)

In my case my isp advertises 5Mbit Upload. I verified that with speedtest.net.

So i enter 5120 as my upload speed. (5 * 1024).

Do some heavy uploading and check your pings. If you are satisfied with the results leave it like that.
If not try enter some lower value. start with 95 % of your upload rate.
For this example it would be 4864. (5120 * 0.95).
Test again.
If the results are still not good enough lower again by 5 %.
e.g. 4608 (5120 * 0.9).
Repeat this steps until you are satisfied with the results.

hope this helps somewhat.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 26, 2014, 11:25:19 AM
Ya sounds good and thanks for the info.

I was on a 2Mb line until they gave me 3Mb recently so I was right on the fence.

I'm checking some old threads dating back a while to see if any one still has there 8 series routers and see if maybe we can get some more beta testing in with results besides my testing.

Once we at least get all the FWs modded and some initial testing done, and once I hear back from D-Link's official stance on this, will see if we can go public here with it or else where since this I presume this wouldn't be supported by D-Link officially. However I believe these routers in this program are headed to EOL, if not already by now so this may open up a bit more freedom in regards to mod'g the FW. Will see what happens.  ::)

Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 26, 2014, 03:50:47 PM
Ok testing with:
Manual Uplink Speed :   3072 kbps    
   (http://www.speedtest.net/result/3398157097.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3398157097)
   
   Diff Server:
   (http://www.speedtest.net/result/3398158874.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3398158874)
   
Speeds hung around 2.90-3.00 and no higher.

   C:\>ping cableone.net -n 1000

Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=225ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=297ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=199ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=345ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=353ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=219ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=429ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=399ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=391ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=471ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 77, Received = 77, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 471ms, Average = 172ms
   
   2nd Run:
C:\>ping cableone.net -n 1000

Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 67, Received = 67, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 111ms

Time seem a bit higher than yesterday at same time frame of day.

Thoughts?  ???
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 27, 2014, 04:41:43 AM
That doesnt look good.
Did you use Automatic Classification?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 27, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
Yes...only thing thats not enabled is Dynamic De fragmentation. Connection Type set to manual CABLE...

I thought maybe time frame of day here could have an impact with the ISP since it was heading into early evening and more people are getting home...not sure.

I did remove the main LAN switch from the router so it was only the one wired PC connected..some wireless devices however they weren't doing anything...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 27, 2014, 07:58:19 AM
Yes could be possibly that your isp is overloaded at the rush hours. Could you try with some even lower value like 2560 ?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 27, 2014, 08:00:33 AM
I will do that...today after work.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 27, 2014, 04:57:16 PM
Looks even worse:
Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 28, Received = 28, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 202ms, Average = 154ms

I'll try again late night...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 29, 2014, 11:17:19 AM
So I forgot my prior 827 results were with a test PC in a QoS rule so I presume this was th reason of the higher ping times.

Manual Measured Uplink Speed :   2560 kbps
15Mb file sent via web email.

QoS enabled with PC in a QoS rule with 128 Priority set:
Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=350ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=388ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=418ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=475ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=477ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=377ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=248ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=494ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=397ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=520ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=399ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=255ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=558ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=411ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=562ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=427ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=582ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=445ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 72, Received = 72, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 582ms, Average = 233ms

PC not in a QoS rule and QoS still enabled:
Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 80, Received = 80, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 64ms, Average = 52ms

PC not in a QoS rule, QoS enabled and 3072kbps set:

Pinging cableone.net [24.116.1.80] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 24.116.1.80: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 24.116.1.80:
    Packets: Sent = 71, Received = 71, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 73ms, Average = 53ms

I believe my earlier tests on the 857 were with a PC not set in a QoS rule, just QoS enabled with the TS settings. I presume QoS rules will effect ping times based on settings and priority values.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 30, 2014, 10:14:52 AM
As i explained to you before if you put a qos rule for one device. Lets say 128. Every Service thats running over the internet gets the priority 128. Thats bad. You do want your games get lower priority value and your file sharing, heavy uploading a higher value ? Dont you? ;) (Lower Value = Higher Priority)

So my recommendation is just use the automatic classification and dont mess with priority rules.
If you want to use priority rules. use rules on service basis not device basis. You can use device rules for example for voip phones.

So the last two test are without priority rule for pc and automatic classification on? They look quite fine.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 30, 2014, 12:16:50 PM
Yes Auto Class. is enabled.

As for rules, all my non critical devices are set in a rule to give normal or close to normal QoS priority with 128..My 2 game consoles are set for 1 or 50, mostly 50 to give the best priority for gaming...

So I think were good on the 827 Mod FW?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: shm0 on March 30, 2014, 03:09:54 PM
Yes i think its fine. ;D
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on March 31, 2014, 07:33:46 AM
Ok, let me know about the 655 FW. I'll get the 657 downloaded. I'm not sure if they are going to do another release of FW on the 657 or not. Didn't get much love in it's life and I think it may have already gone into EOL.  :-\
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on July 27, 2014, 02:18:51 PM
Where is the download link to try this out? 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on July 28, 2014, 10:46:59 AM
PM me your email address and I'll send you it. I did have it up on my FTP, however since I change routers every so often, keeping the FTP going is a pain so it's just easier to email it.

Where is the download link to try this out? 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on July 28, 2014, 10:48:40 AM
Will do.  Thanks, Furry!
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on August 03, 2014, 09:01:38 AM
Did you get a chance to test this out?

Will do.  Thanks, Furry!
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on August 03, 2014, 09:07:41 AM
Did you get a chance to test this out?


Sorry!  Not yet.  I am currently down in Virginia enjoying a couple of weeks in the Blue Ridge Mountains.  I will get around to testing it out once I get back.  As soon as I run if hard for a couple of days, I will report my experience. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on August 03, 2014, 09:12:26 AM
Enjoy the vacation.  ;)
Sorry!  Not yet.  I am currently down in Virginia enjoying a couple of weeks in the Blue Ridge Mountains.  I will get around to testing it out once I get back.  As soon as I run if hard for a couple of days, I will report my experience. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on November 01, 2014, 12:16:09 PM
I want to apologize for my very late reply on this topic.  However, I do have some good results to post.  I have been using this router with the QoS mod firmware solid for a few months now on my work internet connection at home.  The connection is a 50/10 DSL Fiber connection that I regularly hammer with uploads of larger files.  This is the most stable the router has been for me.  I do still have the heatsink installed in it and it still gets quite hot.  With it being stable though, my guess is the cap D-Link has implemented in the stock firmware is at least partially to fault for the instability.  One minor note about my experience with this router whether running on the modded or stock firmware.  It clearly doesn't have the processing power to keep up with multitasking over a network. 

Thanks, Furry, for passing that on to me and thank you to the creator of the modded firmware! 

By the way, I really am liking the new forum colors and style.   :)  I just wish the buttons were slightly larger. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 01, 2014, 12:32:14 PM
Glad it's working well for you.

I recommend using a Laptop cooler under the router. I found out that the heat related problems come from the Canada region only as the USA wasn't able to reproduce or exhibit this issue. Which is still funny has the HW comes from one source. Crazy.  ::)

Ya, the cap was something that was limited to the 2Mb ISPs which not sure why D-Link allowed that since on average ISP uplink speeds are well beyond that now, even at the time this was released, uplinks where beyond 2Mb.

Forum theme is still being worked on and doing some tweeking. I'll ask about making the buttons bigger.

Enjoy. ;)

I want to apologize for my very late reply on this topic.  However, I do have some good results to post.  I have been using this router with the QoS mod firmware solid for a few months now on my work internet connection at home.  The connection is a 50/10 DSL Fiber connection that I regularly hammer with uploads of larger files.  This is the most stable the router has been for me.  I do still have the heatsink installed in it and it still gets quite hot.  With it being stable though, my guess is the cap D-Link has implemented in the stock firmware is at least partially to fault for the instability.  One minor note about my experience with this router whether running on the modded or stock firmware.  It clearly doesn't have the processing power to keep up with multitasking over a network. 

Thanks, Furry, for passing that on to me and thank you to the creator of the modded firmware! 

By the way, I really am liking the new forum colors and style.   :)  I just wish the buttons were slightly larger.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on November 01, 2014, 03:02:25 PM
In defense of D-Link, most of the newer AC routers have heat issues.  My Asus RT-AC66U had to go back for replacement as the heat killed the two USB ports on it.  They were really quick to replace it though and their RMA center was only a half hour drive. 

On screens that are 2560X1440 and higher, the buttons are a little hard to see.   :P
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 01, 2014, 03:12:56 PM
Ya, D-Link seems to have taken some of our concerns to heart. The newer models are sporting better heat cooling sinks now.  ::)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on November 01, 2014, 04:06:29 PM
That is excellent to hear!  I can honestly say, I miss the UI. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 01, 2014, 04:19:48 PM
There making changes in some models though:
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=59563.0 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=59563.0)

 ::)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on November 01, 2014, 04:42:08 PM
That looks nice.  Is the new fat look a result of some decent cooling? 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 04, 2014, 08:55:38 AM
There is a large heat sink plate on the top of the board...  ::)
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on November 04, 2014, 09:14:47 AM
Hopefully it's copper! 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 04, 2014, 09:23:37 AM
Aluminum... It's a thick plate.  :-\
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: SpecTP on November 06, 2014, 12:38:55 PM
I tested this firmware and it works.  But the problem that I have is that my FIOS is 60Mbps/60Mbps.  And turning on this feature drops my upload speed to ~20Mbps (limit of this firmware parameter).
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 06, 2014, 12:52:59 PM
You should be able to set new uplink speeds now...

I tested this firmware and it works.  But the problem that I have is that my FIOS is 60Mbps/60Mbps.  And turning on this feature drops my upload speed to ~20Mbps (limit of this firmware parameter).
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: SpecTP on November 07, 2014, 07:12:03 AM
You should be able to set new uplink speeds now...

I tested this firmware and it works.  But the problem that I have is that my FIOS is 60Mbps/60Mbps.  And turning on this feature drops my upload speed to ~20Mbps (limit of this firmware parameter).

how can I do this?  the manual uplink option only allows me to set values between 20kbps and 2Mbps
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 07, 2014, 07:25:29 AM
If you loaded the modded FW, you should be able to enter values above 2Mb now...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on July 11, 2016, 08:06:55 PM
DIR-655 Rev B v2.11 mod
DNS Relay Disabled.
QoS preset for 3072Mb Uplink.
Rule set for priority 128(Normal) with Mac Book Pro LAN wired to the router and in the rule. ANY Protocol.

ISP:
Last Result:
Download Speed: 102424 kbps (12803 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 2993 kbps (374.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Latency: 13 ms
Jitter: 5 ms
July 11, 2016 at 6:26:05 PM MDT

SPeedtest.net
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/5469338783.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/5469338783)

Ping test with upload from email using Thunderbird: 20Mb file upload
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.343 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.422 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.550 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.533 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.633 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.452 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.569 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.532 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.482 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.385 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.430 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.526 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.462 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.487 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.329 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.334 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.553 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.514 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.550 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.501 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.397 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.374 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.313 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.374 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.357 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=0.364 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=0.358 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=0.307 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=0.424 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=0.522 ms

After initial testing was done, I connected the rest of the network devices along with 2 XB1s and set up QoS for Both, Reserved IPs, Ports 0 thru 65535, BOTH UDP and TCP Protocol, Remote IP from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 with uPnP enabled and Firewall SPI disabled and Endpoint Independent. Both XB1s have OPEN NAT on the Dashboard and BO3. Gaming was good in BO3 with both consoles gaming last nite.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: IMRJS on November 09, 2016, 03:23:57 PM
Ok just tried this on my old DIR-857... Downloaded the firmware from shm0 first post on Google Drive just a few questions.
1. Is this based off 1.04B09Beta03 with the UPNP Vulnerability fix?
2. Is what I downloaded the newest version of the Mod?

I just noticed on my status page I have Firmware Version :1.04 , 27, Jun, 2013. However the date for 1.04B09Beta03 is 11/20/14?

Thank for making this! So far the upload is working I'm getting my full 10mb UL.

Ryan
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on November 09, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
Yes.
There was only 1 mod done and that was it.

Ok just tried this on my old DIR-857... Downloaded the firmware from shm0 first post on Google Drive just a few questions.
1. Is this based off 1.04B09Beta03 with the UPNP Vulnerability fix?
2. Is what I downloaded the newest version of the Mod?

I just noticed on my status page I have Firmware Version :1.04 , 27, Jun, 2013. However the date for 1.04B09Beta03 is 11/20/14?

Thank for making this! So far the upload is working I'm getting my full 10mb UL.

Ryan
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on January 25, 2017, 01:39:04 PM
hey dude how are you ? can you tell me please which is the best conf if i have 200mb/200mb of intenet speed
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 25, 2017, 01:46:00 PM
Link>Welcome! (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=48135.0)



Internet Service Provider and Modem Configurations

Are you trying to configure QoS?
What are you doing? Gaming or video streaming?
Are you the only one doing something with the router or are there other devices involved as well?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on January 25, 2017, 04:00:36 PM
hi . i have the modded version 1.04 dlink 857 i have cable speed 200b/200mb axtel provider , i use it for gaming , gaming center with 25 computer exclusively for online gaming im using a switch gigabit tplink sg1024 model
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 25, 2017, 04:50:04 PM
What region are you located?

Ya not sure if this model router will be good for 25 dedicated gaming PCs.

You can try setting the uplink to 204800 and see if this value is accepted. Not sure if it will be. This model router never supported any uplink speeds over 2Mb and the mod FW was to uncap that limit and not sure if anything over 50Mb or 100Mb will be usable by QoS.

Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on January 25, 2017, 05:59:11 PM
What region are you located?

Ya not sure if this model router will be good for 25 dedicated gaming PCs.


I'm going to say they would be lucky to get 5.  :P  This router is incredibly dated, under powered, and has been since the day it was released.  Have fun trying though. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on January 25, 2017, 11:49:08 PM
im from mexico city
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 26, 2017, 07:00:03 AM
Actually the router was a good router for its time and it's design. I was using this router with well over 5 devices and even did some stress test video streaming with it. Aside the heat sink issue. This router is a good router. Still is!


What region are you located?

Ya not sure if this model router will be good for 25 dedicated gaming PCs.


I'm going to say they would be lucky to get 5.  :P  This router is incredibly dated, under powered, and has been since the day it was released.  Have fun trying though.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 26, 2017, 07:02:57 AM
Do you get ISP sped speeds when testing for speeds?

I think this router maybe good for some gaming. All depends on what your doing and games your playing and bandwidth.

Can give the QoS configuration a try. However again, this router may not be able to handle that kind of work load with 25 gaming PCs and ISP bandwidth in its QoS.  :o

im from mexico city
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on January 26, 2017, 11:43:36 AM
Actually the router was a good router for its time and it's design. I was using this router with well over 5 devices and even did some stress test video streaming with it. Aside the heat sink issue. This router is a good router. Still is!


What region are you located?

Ya not sure if this model router will be good for 25 dedicated gaming PCs.


I'm going to say they would be lucky to get 5.  :P  This router is incredibly dated, under powered, and has been since the day it was released.  Have fun trying though.

I would say that is only true with the mod.  Things have changed a lot and gaming demands as well as streaming in 4k would easily choke this router out on multiple computers.  The heatsink should definitely be added if the person is going to stress this router even in the slightest. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 26, 2017, 01:29:06 PM
I will disagree, gaming hasn't changed that much. Mostly still peer based now days. Maybe more graphics however that's still handled by the game console/PC. Game data and voice is still the same.

Maybe 4K however depending on compression. Of course raw no router can handle that well. Raw 4K is well over 10Gb. The time I was testing everyone's concern about the 857 heat issue. I did stream 3 different sources thru the 857 with out any issues, I had my xbox 360, boxee box and DISH all streaming from Netflix with out any hiccups. This was well before the mod came out. The mod was only for un-capping the QoS limitation on the UPLink only. This router was marketed as a media router. And it worked.



Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 26, 2017, 01:52:11 PM
I would contact your regional D-Link support office or sales office. Ask them specifically if they recommend something for your ISP configuration and HW needs. They may recommend something for you.

im from mexico city
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on January 26, 2017, 02:13:08 PM
thanks a lot man ill be waiting
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: Syaoran on January 26, 2017, 02:14:47 PM
The QOS limitation of the uplink is exactly why it isn't suitable for gaming for a handful of systems, especially if one of those systems is hosting the multiplayer server for a game.  If you are just using it for a glorified switch without reaching out to the internet for gaming on multiple systems, then I think it would do just fine.  When it comes to the downstream, I can agree that the router performed well.  It is the upstream and heat issues that really killed the potential of it along with being slightly under powered in terms of hardware for the time. 
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 26, 2017, 02:43:00 PM
Uplink was based on users having 2Mb UP links or lower on there ISP. I had this for a long time with my ISP and gamed very well with multiple game consoles under one roof along with other devices connected. More than a hand full. Ya the issue was the 2Mb cap however some argued that QoS wasn't really needed on higher uplinks.  ::)

Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 26, 2017, 02:43:24 PM
You'll need to make the phone call.  ;)

thanks a lot man ill be waiting
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on January 27, 2017, 07:16:48 PM
in mexico ppl who sell this products dont know anything about gaming stuffs and that
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: RYAT3 on January 27, 2017, 08:13:22 PM
in mexico ppl who sell this products dont know anything about gaming stuffs and that

?  It's not that old....  ???

Amazon Date First Available   September 24, 2011
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on January 28, 2017, 10:16:54 AM
phone contact your regional D-Link support office.

in mexico ppl who sell this products dont know anything about gaming stuffs and that
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on January 31, 2017, 07:06:43 PM
so what about dir 868l ?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 01, 2017, 06:35:29 AM
The 868L only controls up to 100Mb on QoS.
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: vore82 on February 01, 2017, 07:26:16 AM
:( do you know any model that controls up to 100mb in Qos?
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 01, 2017, 07:28:02 AM
You mean 200Mb? Is this what you mention that your ISP speed was?
I believe the newer DIR-88xL and 89xL series control 300Mb in QoS...
Title: Re: Firmware 1.04 QoS Mod - Finally!
Post by: FurryNutz on February 07, 2017, 04:53:19 PM
I put my 857 online the other night. Must say, still a good router. Turned off the radios and put on a 890L running as an AP. The 857 is handling everything I'm throwing at it. Will be doing some gaming tonite.