ER7212PC slow PPPoE performance
Hello,
The all-in-one router ER7212PC cannot reach the advertised speed of 930Mbps+ over PPPoE.
The advertised NAT(PPPoE) speed in the specification page shows 913.1 Mbps / 935.2 Mbps, however, after several tests, it can only reach 550-620Mbps over an 800Mbps internet plan.
I've tested with another router model ER605 v2, and can get to full speed of 800Mbps.
- Copy Link
- Subscribe
- Bookmark
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @pokhui
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
pokhui wrote
I've updated the ER7212PC to v1.1.4, and here's the comparison of the speed between ER7212PC and ER605 by using local iPerf, over different PPPoE authentication type.
All the tests use the same network cable and the same configuration.
PAP CHAP MSCHAP1 MSCHAP2 ER7212PC 877 853 853 880 ER605 905 922 915 909
Run the chariot and compare the speed again. I got a reply from the dev that the speed data we get in the datasheet comes from the chariot instead of the iperf. Kinda different from what our PM and dev uses. There might be a marginal difference.
Note that the ER605v2 is PPPoE NAT at 939Mbps. Which you get a margin of 20-30Mbps or so. Add this 20-30Mbps to the ER7212PC, it looks proper and normal then.
Secondly, if you have configs, like why I asked earlier, it might be throttling the speed.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @pokhui
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
pokhui wrote
@Clive_A We do not have any other settings set on it. Basically just setup the new unit with PPPoE and run the test. The issue seems to be lacking on the performance, as even the lowest end router ER605 can perform better than ER7212PC.
If I did not explain this well, let me try again.
The performance from the iperf did not show correct stats even with your ER605. It has a 30Mbps or so slower. By doing the math, then this does NOT fit what ER605 advertises. However, I have explained that the iperf may NOT be accurate and that a different software, may have a different way of calculating the final results.
I have clearly instructed you to use the chariot to test it again and give me feedback because you have done the tests of ER7212PC PPPoE with iperf, and by adding up this 30Mbps or so deviation, you get the same advertised PPPoE NAT throughput of ER7212PC.
As you said, you would not pay for that software as it is not free. But you persist this be an issue which I cannot agree with you. If so, I don't think you should be stuck on this matter. Unless you can provide concrete evidence for me.
If you really need me to post a speed test screenshot, let me ask the dev to run chariot and post a screenshot of the speed test result for you to prove that it can meet the advertised NAT throughput.
Let me know if you need that. I am happy to help you get a screenshot if necessary.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @pokhui
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
Try to upgrade your firmware to the latest one: https://www.tp-link.com/en/support/download/er7212pc/v1/#Firmware
Do you use the same cable for WAN when you test the ER605? If no, please use the same cable to rule out the potential cable issue.
Check if you are using the same DNS. And speed tests, you should choose the closest server to test.
BTW, do you have any configurations on it? Or nothing but default, and you set up PPPoE and test the Internet speed?
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
I've updated the ER7212PC to v1.1.4, and here's the comparison of the speed between ER7212PC and ER605 by using local iPerf, over different PPPoE authentication type.
All the tests use the same network cable and the same configuration.
| PAP | CHAP | MSCHAP1 | MSCHAP2 | |
| ER7212PC | 877 | 853 | 853 | 880 |
| ER605 | 905 | 922 | 915 | 909 |
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @pokhui
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
pokhui wrote
I've updated the ER7212PC to v1.1.4, and here's the comparison of the speed between ER7212PC and ER605 by using local iPerf, over different PPPoE authentication type.
All the tests use the same network cable and the same configuration.
PAP CHAP MSCHAP1 MSCHAP2 ER7212PC 877 853 853 880 ER605 905 922 915 909
Run the chariot and compare the speed again. I got a reply from the dev that the speed data we get in the datasheet comes from the chariot instead of the iperf. Kinda different from what our PM and dev uses. There might be a marginal difference.
Note that the ER605v2 is PPPoE NAT at 939Mbps. Which you get a margin of 20-30Mbps or so. Add this 20-30Mbps to the ER7212PC, it looks proper and normal then.
Secondly, if you have configs, like why I asked earlier, it might be throttling the speed.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Clive_A Thanks for the update.
It seems chariot is not a free tool, so I can't test with it.
For the configuration file, let me know how can I private message you, as I've tried to message you but got rejected.
Thanks.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @pokhui
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
pokhui wrote
@Clive_A Thanks for the update.
It seems chariot is not a free tool, so I can't test with it.
For the configuration file, let me know how can I private message you, as I've tried to message you but got rejected.
Thanks.
Do you have any special settings like ACL or NAT-related entries? The more entries you have, the more performance the CPU requires which can be a cause for the problem you experience.
If there isn't any, then it should not be the problem here. It does not look like a problem so far. Regardless of your config, you can try without any configuration on your end. It looks okay at this moment.
As I explained above, the speed does not look wrong and we cannot reproduce this problem in our controlled environment. The local test you have seems to be normal.
If you really need to transfer your file, please use your email address registered on the forum as the password to encrypt your file as the password. You can upload it here and I will help you check it.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Clive_A We do not have any other settings set on it. Basically just setup the new unit with PPPoE and run the test. The issue seems to be lacking on the performance, as even the lowest end router ER605 can perform better than ER7212PC.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @pokhui
Thanks for posting in our business forum.
pokhui wrote
@Clive_A We do not have any other settings set on it. Basically just setup the new unit with PPPoE and run the test. The issue seems to be lacking on the performance, as even the lowest end router ER605 can perform better than ER7212PC.
If I did not explain this well, let me try again.
The performance from the iperf did not show correct stats even with your ER605. It has a 30Mbps or so slower. By doing the math, then this does NOT fit what ER605 advertises. However, I have explained that the iperf may NOT be accurate and that a different software, may have a different way of calculating the final results.
I have clearly instructed you to use the chariot to test it again and give me feedback because you have done the tests of ER7212PC PPPoE with iperf, and by adding up this 30Mbps or so deviation, you get the same advertised PPPoE NAT throughput of ER7212PC.
As you said, you would not pay for that software as it is not free. But you persist this be an issue which I cannot agree with you. If so, I don't think you should be stuck on this matter. Unless you can provide concrete evidence for me.
If you really need me to post a speed test screenshot, let me ask the dev to run chariot and post a screenshot of the speed test result for you to prove that it can meet the advertised NAT throughput.
Let me know if you need that. I am happy to help you get a screenshot if necessary.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Information
Helpful: 0
Views: 673
Replies: 7
Voters 0
No one has voted for it yet.