Intermittent slow router response - old age?

[cytherian]

I've read a number of times some unsubstantiated claims that say a WiFi router has a limited lifespan of about 3-5 years, depending upon a few factors (like throughput levels, temperature management, etc). Sometimes you can get them to go for 8-10 years, but generally by then the technology has improved so much you'll want to upgrade.

Occasionally when I'm using my 4 year old router, a TP-LINK TL-WR941ND, it will become sluggish. At times it seems to be coincident with the weather (like very rainy day or hot outdoor temps), but sometimes not. It's actually located in the basement of the multi-family house, in a room that is generally kept at about 72-75 degrees. One thing I do to try isolating the cause is to locally connect to the router via the Admin web portal. I always find that this is sluggish as well. Right there it eliminates the ISP as the cause. If the web pages I'm trying to load are slow, but so are the router admin pages, it has to be the router. I have 2 computers that will demonstrate the sluggishness simultaneously in multiple browsers from different makers, so it's not the computers (which were rebooted to be sure it wasn't them with CPU running too many background processes). Occasionally, rebooting the router helps, but even when it does it is often short lived. And then the next day, miraculously the router is performing A-OK.

I thought that maybe the firmware may have been problematic, as I upgraded to the latest version provided by the manufacturer, and then ran into other problems like suddenly the router is unreachable. I loaded earlier versions of the software, and even went to a DD-WRT version (non-OEM open source firmware), but that seemed to help only for a short while. Eventually I went back to factory defaults and from there did a fresh install of the latest firmware--this helped for a longer period of time, but eventually the router started to behave periodically sluggishly again.

What I'm trying to understand is this--when such a symptom of sluggish performance is being exhibited, is this a sign that the router has "had it?" Time for a new one? Or are there some other factors I may be overlooking?

Thanks.

 

[AmericanPharaoh]

Have you contacted your ISP, had them reset your account, and check your bandwidth?

Have to ran Internet speed tests at different times of the day?

Put the computer and router in the same room together to rule out weak signal.

Who do you use as an ISP?

Is your router network secure?

 

[Slartybart]

A few other simple things after you try Jock's suggestions

make sure the anntenas are secure - tighten them is required
move the router away from any flourescent lighting, cordless phones, or electrical motors.
post ping results (192.168.0.1; might be 192.168.1.1 if it auto switched)

I'm assuming that this is shared by the multi family house and you have the privilige of administering it.
Try adjusting the QOS on the router

If your community doesn't need UPnP - disable it.

See how many other routers use the same channel as your router:
https://tools.meraki.com/stumbler#q= (requires java)
inSSIDer for Home – Discover The Wi-Fi Around You | MetaGeek

MakeUseOf article: When Defaults Are Bad: Picking The Best Channel On a Wireless Router

User manual: http://www.tp-link.com/resources/document/TL-WR941ND_V5_User_Guide_1910010790.pdf

If I think of anything else, I'll post it - but that's off the top of my head.
This type of issue is more trial and error - change a setting, see how it behaves in your environment. But you already know that - you've been doing just that.

 

[cytherian]

Thanks a lot for the tips, guys.

Regarding the ISP, we have not had them reset the account. Why would this need to be done? When in close proximity to the router, the problem is not nearly as prevalent. This is tending to happen when around 50-80 feet vertically from the router. But the computers attached by WiFi to the network have 4-5 bars and 30-45Mbps. I've also ran network monitoring software (using inSSIDer) that shows the router signal strength varies between 69-72dbm. Despite these numbers, when the sluggishness occurs, none of them drop to lower levels. I detect about 7-8 overlapping networks, but they are faint signals. I have changed to several different channels, but found that 11 works best (I get the highest Mbps indications) and others have more overlapping networks. Oh and QSS is disabled.

Our ISP is Optimum Online. It's not the best, but it should be consistent. And the router is secure (good question), as I've monitored attached computers and it is never showing unrecognized MAC addresses, with at most 2 computers maximum at any given time (mostly it is just 1 computer--mine). The sluggishness is observed at times even when I'm the only one attached.

I'm wondering though... and this will really help... --> If the ISP connection becomes sluggish for whatever reason, shouldn't the responsiveness of the router's administrative pages be unaffected? Because the access is just local. I find that it's NEVER the case where the admin pages are responsive on the LAN with Internet responsiveness slow. If it's the kind of thing where ISP responsiveness is tripping up the router such that it's hung up waiting for Internet response that ends up causing local Admin access to slow, then I'll know it's not necessarily the router that is at fault.

 

[UsernameIssues]

When surfing becomes sluggish
...and when yours is the only computer on the network
...then disconnect the TL-WR941ND from the internet
...and test the speed of the web based interface for the TL-WR941ND

These web based interfaces are usually stored in the equipment itself, but I've seen some that get a small amount of info from the web (when it is available). If your ISP is sluggish, then perhaps the web based interface for the TL-WR941ND will be sluggish too as it waits on external content before delivering the total page to you. If there is no connection to the internet, the web server in the TL-WR941ND should give up quickly on getting external content and just deliver what it can from inside itself.

If the interface to the TL-WR941ND remains sluggish while the TL-WR941ND is disconnected from the internet, then restart the TL-WR941ND and retest the speed of the interface (while it is still disconnected from the internet). Restarting the TL-WR941ND should cure any speed issues involving the web based interface - unless this interface is indeed waiting on external content.

You might want to read this post and the one after it.

 

[Slartybart]

Usernameissues gives you a great way to test the device in stand alone mode.

Normally pairing your router chip and your nic card results in better perfomance (router has broadcom and your nic has broadcom).

I have an Asus RT-N53 router and firmare updates really made a difference. One made it worse, but latter ones improved performance greatly (going from 5 to 50 Mbps and better signal strength).

If you decide to replace the device, I recommend Belkin. Normally, I don't put much stock in brand name equipment, but my neighbor asked me for advice when he was building his home network. We looked at a number of wireless routers and he pick a Netgear route based on price and features. He wasn't satisfied with the perrformance and went with the Belkin N750 DB Wi-Fi Dual-Band N+ Gigabit Router (I think that was the model). Anyway.....

The performance was unbeleivable and consistent even through a block wall.

The ac protocol models are dropping in price,so you might consider one those.
Belkin USA Site: wireless router search results

Bill

 

[cytherian]

UserNameIssues, thanks a lot for that link. I created two batch files, one to ping Google and one to ping the router.

Well, when I'd click on a link in the browser and find the activity stalled (spinning indicator, nothing happening), the ping response from the router would be stalled as well. The responsiveness of the Internet should be independent of local traffic. But for some reason, my router gets tripped up. I'm wondering if there's some setting that may control this, or if it's just a sign of an aging router.

 

[UsernameIssues]

This next test might not be convenient:

Leave a LAN cable connected to the TL-WR941ND.

The next time surfing fails, quickly disable your wireless connection and connect the LAN cable to the laptop.

If you can surf via LAN cable, then there might be something interfering with your Wi-Fi signal.

If you cannot surf via LAN cable, then there might be something wrong with your router or ISP.

If you can ping the router via LAN cable, but not surf - then it might be an ISP issue.

 

[cytherian]

Thanks for the additional advice. Yeah, the test you suggest will be a bit difficult to do, as I don't have easy access to the router to inspect as soon as I see lag occurring.


Meanwhile, I left the router ping window going while I was browsing and observed some interesting symptoms. The router will be giving quick replies on pings when idle. Such as:

Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64


However, when loading a page that starts to take a while, like the Amazon home page, I'll see the response slow down and sometimes it will time out. For a few moments it will become more responsive, but then time out again. After the page completes loading, the pings jump back to quick responsiveness:

Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1860ms TTL=64
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=6482ms TTL=64
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=256ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3871ms TTL=64
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=5311ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64


But then other times, I'll go to load the same page and it will be very quick. What I will observe is that when waiting for various ads and other objects to load that might be coming from external sources, the time will momentarily take a few hundred milliseconds (e.g. 962ms, 388ms, 1320ms), but once they finish loading the pings go back to 1-4ms.

Incidentally, I've also had two windows going, pings to router and pings to Google, and similar response times are mirrored, wavering from fast to slow to fast. When the router is becoming slow to respond, pings to Google are also slow... I have not yet observed Google pings slowing down while router pings remain fast.

These responses definitely suggest that the router is having some kind of multi-tasking issue at times. It's not consistent though... because when I see the ping response time slow down for a given website, I can launch another like Amazon, and it will load with only a slight indication of sluggishness. But then there will be a moment when I'm finding a website that normally loads quickly is hung up. The pings will time out. And I can launch other web pages from sites that should be responsive and see them also hang.

 

[chev65]

Using an over crowded channel can have this type of effect on wireless connections, drop outs, slow down's etc.

It's easy enough to check the channels to see which ones are better by using a free software program like inSSIDer WiFi Scanner. > inSSIDer for Home ? Discover The Wi-Fi Around You | MetaGeek

 

[UsernameIssues]

I've read (but cannot verify) that ping traffic is given the lowest priority on a network... so I'm not sure how good of a measure it is for changes that happen for a small amount of time. The router might opt to not respond to pings at all if it thinks that it has better things to do

Even pinging two or three web servers out on the internet can yield results that are hard to correlate with a particular event. But ping times can give you a feel for the norm. And they are great for answering more binary questions:
Am I online?
Am I offline?
If offline, can I reach the router? If yes, then perhaps it is the ISP.

If you want a bit more stable ping times, pick a server that is physically closer to you than Google's or Amazon's. You can do that via tracert. Take note of the IP address for the 3rd or 4th hop. Constantly ping that IP instead of Google.

From a cmd prompt window:

tracert google.com

Don't worry about hops that have no ping times...
...but don't use them as IPs to ping either.

 

[cytherian]

Using an over crowded channel can have this type of effect on wireless connections, drop outs, slow down's etc.

It's easy enough to check the channels to see which ones are better by using a free software program like inSSIDer WiFi Scanner

I've tried a few different channels (1, 6, 11) and I'm on one with the least overlaps. They all have overlaps, except for channels in between like 2, 9, 10, etc, but I find the Mbps is not as high or responsiveness as good. I read somewhere that 1, 6, and 11 are the best channels for WiFi; minimal interference from other electronics.

If you want a bit more stable ping times, pick a server that is physically closer to you than Google's or Amazon's. You can do that via tracert. Take note of the IP address for the 3rd or 4th hop. Constantly ping that IP instead of Google.

Interesting... I'm finding it takes 10 hops to get to Google! I've found that the list of IP addresses does shift a little, but the 3rd and 4th are consistent. I'll use one of those instead.

But what I do find interesting is that the lag times were pretty similar with both the router and external addresses. If I found the router quick but an external address slow, then that would definitely point to the ISP (assuming target should be responsive).

 

[UsernameIssues]

With the tracert thing - you want the first IP that is outside of your home (perhaps a box in the alley) and yet will reply to IPs.

I would still ping Google too, just to know that your ISP has not lost its connection to the rest of the world (which I've had happen when a major fiber was cut).

 

[chev65]

Using an over crowded channel can have this type of effect on wireless connections, drop outs, slow down's etc.

It's easy enough to check the channels to see which ones are better by using a free software program like inSSIDer WiFi Scanner

I've tried a few different channels (1, 6, 11) and I'm on one with the least overlaps. They all have overlaps, except for channels in between like 2, 9, 10, etc, but I find the Mbps is not as high or responsiveness as good. I read somewhere that 1, 6, and 11 are the best channels for WiFi; minimal interference from other electronics.

If you want a bit more stable ping times, pick a server that is physically closer to you than Google's or Amazon's. You can do that via tracert. Take note of the IP address for the 3rd or 4th hop. Constantly ping that IP instead of Google.

Interesting... I'm finding it takes 10 hops to get to Google! I've found that the list of IP addresses does shift a little, but the 3rd and 4th are consistent. I'll use one of those instead.

But what I do find interesting is that the lag times were pretty similar with both the router and external addresses. If I found the router quick but an external address slow, then that would definitely point to the ISP (assuming target should be responsive).

You might want to check that channel bonding is disabled, this will show up as two channels when you check on inSSIDer, and the setting for this looks like 20Mhz-40mhz which should be set to 20Mhz "single channel mode".

In crowded areas channel bonding can cause problems with spikes in network connections so turning it off would help in your case.

 

[cytherian]

You might want to check that channel bonding is disabled, this will show up as two channels when you check on inSSIDer, and the setting for this looks like 20Mhz-40mhz which should be set to 20Mhz "single channel mode".

In crowded areas channel bonding can cause problems with spikes in network connections so turning it off would help in your case.

My router was set to "Auto", and did show a co-channel in the inSSIDer display (e.g. 11+7). I selected "20MHz" to force disabled channel bonding, but upon doing so I noticed that rather than getting 30Mbps on average with my 3rd floor laptop location, I was shunted down to 13Mbps. Web page loading was noticeably slowed. Unacceptable. I guess I'll have to experiment with a variety of other channels outside of the common 1, 6, 11.

The thing that bothers me is that even when I select a channel that is not appearing multiple times in the SSID list, I still end up with a good 5-7 channel overlaps. Yikes... just tried channel 9 and ended up with overlaps fluctuating from 7 to 14! Looks like I should make a matrix notation of what I observe with each channel and then narrow it down.

 

[chev65]

You might want to check that channel bonding is disabled, this will show up as two channels when you check on inSSIDer, and the setting for this looks like 20Mhz-40mhz which should be set to 20Mhz "single channel mode".

In crowded areas channel bonding can cause problems with spikes in network connections so turning it off would help in your case.

My router was set to "Auto", and did show a co-channel in the inSSIDer display (e.g. 11+7). I selected "20MHz" to force disabled channel bonding, but upon doing so I noticed that rather than getting 30Mbps on average with my 3rd floor laptop location, I was shunted down to 13Mbps. Web page loading was noticeably slowed. Unacceptable. I guess I'll have to experiment with a variety of other channels outside of the common 1, 6, 11.

The thing that bothers me is that even when I select a channel that is not appearing multiple times in the SSID list, I still end up with a good 5-7 channel overlaps. Yikes... just tried channel 9 and ended up with overlaps fluctuating from 7 to 14! Looks like I should make a matrix notation of what I observe with each channel and then narrow it down.

Yes I can tell by the very low Mbps values that you are using legacy or mixed wireless mode which is great if you have older wireless devices to support "abg: devices but will bring your connection speeds way down.

Using legacy mode is like installing an outdated router, it's a waste of a good wireless n router to use legacy or mixed modes, this handcuffs all your other wireless N devices.

If you are using only wireless N devices then you can use the setting on your router for 802.11n Only which should increase connection speeds considerably and may also help with the connection quality.

Yes experimenting with different channels may help but the N only mode is the only way to go here.

 

[cytherian]

Unfortunately, my cell phone does not support Wireless N... and I do use the WiFi connection periodically. But if the performance is noticeably better with "N", I may switch to it and just use cellular data minutes when called for (a likely worthwhile tradeoff).

In any case, the best channel does not appear to be a static proposition. I'll use one channel and it'll be fine for a good while, but then if there's more WiFi activity in the local vicinity it'll get bogged down. Switching to another channel can help alleviate it. inSSIDer is useful to help test out the performance score of a selected channel.

Still, it does seem like there is a bandwidth issue for my router with devices connected on the periphery of a strong signal... which is either the router aging or local interference has gone up. I started searching for a replacement candidate but... it's daunting. There are so many routers offered at different price points, but there's no clear winner. The only exception seems to be Apple's latest Airwave router, but I'm still not sure yet how much of the reviews are being pumped up by Apple fanboys.

 

[chev65]

Unfortunately, my cell phone does not support Wireless N... and I do use the WiFi connection periodically. But if the performance is noticeably better with "N", I may switch to it and just use cellular data minutes when called for (a likely worthwhile tradeoff).

In any case, the best channel does not appear to be a static proposition. I'll use one channel and it'll be fine for a good while, but then if there's more WiFi activity in the local vicinity it'll get bogged down. Switching to another channel can help alleviate it. inSSIDer is useful to help test out the performance score of a selected channel.

Still, it does seem like there is a bandwidth issue for my router with devices connected on the periphery of a strong signal... which is either the router aging or local interference has gone up. I started searching for a replacement candidate but... it's daunting. There are so many routers offered at different price points, but there's no clear winner. The only exception seems to be Apple's latest Airwave router, but I'm still not sure yet how much of the reviews are being pumped up by Apple fanboys.

As long as you are using legacy mode a new router would be a waste either way. It's not just a small amount faster, it's actually 5-6 times faster in N only mode. This answers your first question to a T.

The only way to achieve true wireless N speeds is by using the N only mode. Most every recently made phone can use wireless N so updating the phone would help here. Too many good router choices to mention here but anything from Apple would be my last choice.

 

[cytherian]

I did switch the router to Wireless-N only and much to my surprise, my phone worked. I'd read on-line in various Android forums that my phone wasn't compatible with Wireless-N... but either they were mistaken or this was resolved in a later release of the operating system. I'm also on a hacked OS, so that might be part of it.

In any case, performance is a little better, but I couldn't claim even as much as 2 times let alone 5-6 times. Also, my router went mysteriously "silent" for a period of about 12 hours (last night and still this morning) until it miraculously restarted itself. The log showed it had been rebooted, but my landlord said they hadn't even touched it (they control the space where the router resides). It is coincident with my switching to Wireless-N only... but I'll have to see if it was just a momentary glitch.


My interest in a new router would be for the following:
1) Stronger transmission signal
2) More reliable performance
3) Better filtering of environmental noise (e.g. overlapping networks)

 

[chev65]

The gains from going to wireless N are very dependent on the client which a phone is not a good example of wireless N potential, in fact it's the worst example possible.

You need a PCI or USB NIC and a real PC, plus a more capable router before you will see wireless N's true potential.

So your claims of only 2 times the speeds aren't realistic as you are measuring from a phone and probably built in NIC's which are only capable of 150Mbps. Wireless N can go to 450Mbps but you need the right hardware, you pay for what you get here and nobody gives this stuff away.

At any rate I believe I sorted out your problem which points to the router and reliability issues plus client NIC's that won't come close to achieving the best wireless N speeds.

The router choice is entirely up to you as there are too many too choose from and price point comes into play.