Slow Download Speeds R710 Unleashed

  • 16
  • Question
  • Updated 4 days ago
  • Acknowledged
Strange issue with R710 on latest unleashed firmware. Upload speeds consistently incredible on both laptop and phone but downloads even from 5 ft away never go over 200 but stay consistent through 3 thick walls. Speedflex on android shows 550 up 550 down to AP. Iperf reflects speedtest.net results. Cable shouldn't be the problem as I have plugged my laptop on it and gotten the gigabit fiber speeds I should be getting. I have factory reset it countless times set everything to auto and tried manually setting the bands and channel width, am I missing something? Any help would be appreciated.
Photo of Max P

Max P

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 9 months ago

  • 16
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Ok Just emailed Ruckus Tech Engineer some of my results from testing  from last night on iPro Pro 2018 and also a Modified Lenovo i7-620 with Intel 7260 WIF AC. Testing with Iperf3. I have more details in the files.

If you interested in the results between the newest 200.7.10.202.94 and 200.4.x firmware  it's in RTF format.  Sharing it for view from my dropbox.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4bxee0j84pixcro/R710%20Firmware%20%20200.7.10.202.94%20iPad%20Pro%20Tests....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0z06p49os2w81q/R710%20firmware%20200.4.9.13.47%20iPad%20Pro%20Tests.rtf?d...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yys2kj99myvch0e/R710%20firmware%20200.4.9.13.47%20Lenovo%20Tests.rtf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mqv8mt4qufxldqp/R710%20firmware%20200.7.10.202.94%20Lenovo%20Tests.rtf?dl=...

Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
I have yet to test 200.7.10.2.339 and 200.7.10.102.64 which I know are the more problematic using speedtest.net and speedflex....

To make it short.. there is a clear difference in downstream from firmware 200.7.10.202.94 and 200.4.x  firmware. It even impacts my windows 10 Machine using an intel 7260 wifi ac card..... could test it with a broadcom card later..
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
now I wonder how they did tests for speedflex and compare that to speedtest.net... and iperf3
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Confirmed 200.8.10.3.243 still has same slow wifi speed bug from 200.7.x firmware.  Anyway just got done testing with Ruckus Engineering support on firmware 200.7.10.202.94 and standalone 104.x firmware. I still need to get the files uploaded later tonight
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Yup. Just tested. 200.8. thats just released has not addressed the issue. I am getting frustrated at ruckus for failing to even acknowledge the fact that their NEWER equipment has an issue with connections to one of the worlds most popular mobile devices. I will post basic results tomorrow. Need to revert back. 200.6 seems to be the sweet spot for me, allows 400-550mbps on iphone pro max.
Photo of Antoine Hannemann

Antoine Hannemann

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
200.8 on R720 same issue, slow download speeds, no difference to 200.7...
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 335 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Anyway, they’ll look at my iperf3 results and support files they needed tomorrow since the testing we did was very late towards the end of their working hours.  Their main guy that was working with me had to hand me over to their other guy since they were switching shifts, but it just seems strange, they just think it’s only an unleashed issue.
i know it also impacts standalone firmware 110.x too.  Anyway, the only testing we did was 200.7.x and 104.x firmware.    I do believe it’s cross platform, but their larger customers that don’t use unleashed don’t really care about individual client speed as much for max throughput. Anyway, my iperf3 results show a big decrease between 200.7.x and 104.x firmware single stream test only. Strange they preferred using iperf2 and I insisted using iperf3.
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 335 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Unfortunately, I could not do a speedtest.net test that they requested since I don’t have gigabit bandwidth isp yet. Using static ips at the moment and running a mail server.
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 335 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Sam Morduke,

               I trust you are a technical consultant that can run iperf3 tests right? I really don't know why they can't request your help. I suggested them to contact you. They even have requested me if I can find a clients site that has gigabit bandwidth to see if I can run tests. I know the clients that are for sure affected aren't around since they are on vacation.  Then there's a few sites that are unknown since I never bothered upgrading them to 200.7.x

I'm not even going to bother with the small school sites or larger sites..



Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
That would be correct. This is at home though. Running iperf server, have 4 different generations of iphones, some ipads and running 3 x r710’s
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Spectrum line is 1gbps down and 40mbps up asymmetrical. Router / hardwired pulls 800-1000mbps consistently.
Photo of Alexander Lee

Alexander Lee

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Any solutions to this yet? I'm see the same problem with speed here. We have a engineer looking into this as well. 
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
My final result is as follows; Rx10 series AP's should stay on 200.6. 200.5 seems to make things worse on other clients but better iperf/speedflex results. 200.8 made it even worse, so nothing has been changed as of today. 200.6 is best bet for unleashed on Rx10 series, getting consistently 450-600mbps on 200.6

Rx00 series perform best on 200.7.x.94, I have been testing r600 and r500 units extensively and it keeps coming back to 200.7 as the best blend. Have been consistently pulling in about 500mbps on 200.7
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I haven't had time to get into zone director yet, but thats my next step. I have r300, r500, r600, r610, r700 and r710 in stock and i have 6 zd1200's all laying around. When I have time, I will do the same and see if any of the unleashed firmware issues have seeped into the ZD environment.
Photo of trtw ua

trtw ua

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
so what firmware version have the best perfomance? 200.4 or 200.6?
a big difference between these firmware if i use only 40mhz? for R500
what version more stable? what version will provide for 30-40 clients more speed?

newest firmware have many function, like disable wlan 2.4 on ssid, so what to choose?
(Edited)
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
My tests were on 5ghz with an 80mhz channel width. I haven’t bothered with 40mhz and this seems to be an issue with the Rx10 series. R500 use latest firmware, I tested several r500’s and r600’s and they perform best on 200.7
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 335 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Yeah I can confirm that the R500 works best with 200.7.10.94  which is the last firmware that it supports for now. .. I can get 400-500mbps on on iPad Pro 2018.... Just don't run speedflex on the unit you are testing.. best separate unit.  Also iperf3 test confirms it too....
Photo of trtw ua

trtw ua

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
what about your older tests? on top 2 and 3 pages
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 335 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
Unfortunately, my older tests with the r500 were with speedflex on the ap itself which is not accurate. I still get the same results if I running on itself, but when measuring speed throughput to  another speedflex server that’s wired on the network it’s on par with my iperf3 tests. 
as for the r710, r610, r510... the slow down still happens .....with iperf3 and speedflex sever on a different speedflex server. ..

I just wish I had gigabit bandwidth to do more testing..

 so really this bug seems to only impact 802.11ac wave 2 APs.
(Edited)
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I'm having the exact same issue on an R710 and an R720 running unleashed on the latest firmware.  I have replaced both radio's with R700 and a ZoneDirector 1200 and the problem was gone.  Same exact wiring, same location, same clients.  Definitely an issue with Unleased.  I'm getting internet connections at less than 1/2 the speed as I do using the R700 with ZD1200.  I only have 13 clients so the difference is very obvious.
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
So using R710 and ZD1200 with latest FW on all doesn't impact speed? Haven't had time to test that yet.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
No, I’m sorry. I had the zd1200 with 2 r700’s. Now I’m using an r710 and an r720, both unleashed, no zone controller. Speed is less than half...
Photo of gerimaster

gerimaster

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes

Hi All!

Maybe I found a resolution, or idea for the problem.


Test environment:


500/50Mbps DOCSIS3  Internet Provider Modem in Bridge mode to Pfsense 2.4 

Ruckus R720 with POE+ 60watt


Unleashed Settings: 


Support for 802.11d disabled

Radio Resource Management : disabled

Background Scanning : disabled

5GHz AUTO channel 44 fixed

2,4 GHz disabled (I don’t need it)

Poe: AT+ set manual 


WPA2 OPEN with Password

Clients:

Iphone X

Macbook Pro 2018

Samsung galaxy s10

Dell XPS Windows


Ruckus R720 Unleashed 200.8.10.3.243


Sorry for my english!  I tried all firmwares from 200.6 to 200.8 but 200.6 was the best from all.


Speedtest.net


200.6.10    D 400-450Mbit / U 50Mbit 

200.7.x.      D 160-210Mbit/ U 50Mbit (only dell XPS was perform to 420-450Mbit download speed)

200.8.10     D 160-210Mbit / U 50 Mbit (only dell XPS was perform to 420-450Mbit speed)


6 Day working and then I found the bug (maybe).


You need to enable MESH and ARP broadcasting filter! Reboot your AP before testing!

(You don’t need 2 AP’s for enable Mesh) 


And NOW: 

Iperf3 D 450-480 Mbit 

Speedtest.net 

200.8.10     D 480-495 Mbit / U 50 Mbit !!!

The overall wifi coverage with this “hack” is not so good as with the 200.6 firmware. But maybe Ruckus people can find the problems with the new information.

(Edited)
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 335 Posts
  • 51 Reply Likes
The problem now is for ruckus to be able to reproduce the problem at their labs which they can not seems to reproduce. So I had one of their techs log on my site and helped them perform iPerf 3 tests ... anyway Had to send them support logs and so far no word... that was about 2-3 weeks ago.
(Edited)
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 14 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
How difficult can this be?!  Just use a single AP (I have an R710 and an R720) in Unleashed mode and test it with a single client (MacBook Pro in my case). You'll see immediately that the internet speeds are between 1/4 and 1/2 of what the internet speed should be.  Super simple to replicate.  Believe me, I've tried everything and keep getting this same result.  How difficult is that to fix?!  This has been going on for over 6 months!!!!  I bought a $19 wireless AP and it outperforms both my R710 AND my R720.  How pathetic is that?!
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
@gerimaster, not sure how you did your testing. I tried all variants of what you mentioned, arp filter on only, mesh on only, both on, and no result. Made it just as slow as before. Not sure how you got improved test results. Need to default all ap's now and reload 200.6... ughhh

Photo of Igor Vax

Igor Vax

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I tried to change the firmware from 200.8 to 200.6 without resetting to the factory settings, there is no result for me. Magic with stable performance begins if only reset to factory and then downgrade to 200.6?
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Got a reply from support:

Now what does this mean???

——————/—

We got an update from the engineering team and they confirmed that there is some issue speed test tool test on the unleashed platform however there will be no performance issue with AP's' and they are separately dealing with speed test outputs.

Please confirm if your client-facing any performance issue.
Photo of Vesalius

Vesalius

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Are they trying to say the speed test tool output is bad or at fault, but the unleashed AP performance is fine?

or in other words it is their fault not ours? 
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 26 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
This is utter non-sense.  I tried the unleashed R710 & R720 back to back with my system using the ZD1200 with 2 R700's.  The speed difference is dramatic!!!  Almost 4x!  Same exact clients, internet connection, location, etc.  Identical al.  Same speedtest as well.  They are in complete denial.
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3254 Posts
  • 503 Reply Likes
No, that is what DE is saying, it's the Speedtest tool, not the AP performance (with different ac clients, using iperf local client to network target).
I've provided engineering with feedback from this thread, about testing iOS 13+ not MacOS, etc. 

Please provide your Unleashed R710 client results, from anything but the Speedtest tool, and I will continue to share it with engineering.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 26 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Hello Michael;
Please let me know what tool to use instead and I'll send you the results.
My point was though, using the speedtest tool on both setups, the speeds with the unleashed AP's is between 1/3 and 1/4 of the speed vs using R700 AP's and a ZD1200.  If it was the speedtest, wouldn't the results be the same?
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 576 Posts
  • 176 Reply Likes
Speedtest on desktop is simply using a web browser to download about a dozen files adding up to a few hundred megabytes over HTTPS. I am also curious what issue was identified with the test as I've generally found it an accurate reflection of how fast one can download large files.
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
I don't get it.. isn't iperf3 the professional tool to test network bandwidth locally?  I do see a speed difference between 200.7.x and 200.4.x . it's not as dramatic as using the speedflex or speedtest.net ... but there is a performance difference between those two firmware for single stream and multi stream.  They only had me run single stream on iperf3..... (they would prefer iperf2, but I made them use iperf3. The different for single stream is averaging 120mbps (200.7.x) vs 276mbps (200.4.x)?   Note this is single stream....  that's like a drop of 156mbps for single stream.

There is clearly an issue since iperf3 is "THE BENCHMARK TOOL" for networking.

(Edited)
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
they have my results and support logs I sent them.
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Also note, I don't see the kind of drop when using iperf3 on Wave1 APs like R500? Note my earlier complaint results were using speedflex on the same AP I was testing so not a good testing method.  Anyway with iperf3 on wave 1 performance was similar to each other with different firmware.  Can they explain the different between performance of wave 1 and wave 2 Aps using iperf3 and yet the wave 2 APs with iperf3 are much slower than Wave1 Aps on single stream????
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Yes, I can understand why speedtest.net might not be a great tool to test with or speedflex on the same AP which is why I changed my testing methods.  If I do speedflex now I use it on a different AP that I test... but at this point since iperf3 is the professional tool to test and benchmark with... my results stand and does point to having a drop in throughput... did they ignore looking at my results with iperf3?
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Michael Brado,

I’m just curious why support is so fixated on used iperf2 to run tests?  Why not used iperf3? 
Remember two months ago you posted results for a MacBook Pro test using OS X .

and the test commands that were given were for the client:
 client: iperf -c server's IP -t 60/iperf -c server's IP -u -l 1400 -t 60 -b800m


why did they not suggest  using the command -R? For reverse test from the server which is to test download from the server? Without the -R command  it would be testing uploads only?

I’m now questioning their test commands.

Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Michael Brado,

I’m just curious why support is so fixated on used iperf2 to run tests?  Why not used iperf3? 
Remember two months ago you posted results for a MacBook Pro test using OS X .

and the test commands that were given for the client:
 client: iperf -c server's IP -t 60/iperf -c server's IP -u -l 1400 -t 60 -b800m


why did they not suggest  using the command -R? For reverse test from the server which is to test download from the server? Without the -R command  it would be testing uploads only?

I’m now questioning their test commands.

(Edited)
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Answering my question iperf2 does not support -R
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Still why doesn’t support iperf3?
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 365 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Anyway I replied to the support and asked them please clarify what they mean.

This is their reply

—————/
There is an issue with speed test tools including online iperf and speed test on unleashed newer versions.

Engineering team is working on these inputs internally however they did the testing and there is no much difference in throughput results of 200.4 to 200.8.

Please confirm if we have any performance issues on the client network.
———

Right now things are just still inclusive and further testing is still being done.
(Edited)
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
There seems to be confusion on everyones part back and forth. Here is my notes after testing thoroughly, same network, same ISP same set of AP's;


UNLEASHED TESTING NOTES:

R500/R600:
200.7 - Had the iPerf3, Ookla and Unifi Speedtests significantly Better. All average around 400-500mbps up/down. Speedflex barely works and when it does the throughput shows 100mbps (+/-20) which I am certain is inaccurate.

R500/R600:
200.6 - Had the iPerf3, Ookla and Unifi Speedtests somewhat worse than 200.7. All average around 300-400mbps up/down. Speedflex actually worked better and the throughput was around 150mbps (+/-20)


R500/R600:
200.5 - Had the iPerf3, Ookla and Unifi Speedtests way worse than 200.6. All average around 200-300mbps up/down. Speedflex actually worked best and the throughput was around 300mbps (+/-20) which seems 200.5 Speedflex still worked.

===============================


R710/R610:
200.8 - Had the iPerf3, Ookla and Unifi Speedtests at worst results. All average around 80-100mbps down and around 30-40mbps up, huge cut on up speed for some reason. Could not get speedflex to work.


R710/R610:
200.7 - Had the iPerf3, Ookla and Unifi Speedtests a bit better than 200.8. All average around 200-300mbps up/down. Could not get speedflex to work.


R710/R610:
200.6 - Had the iPerf3, Ookla and Unifi Speedtests at it's best. All average around 500-700mbps up/down. Speedflex actually worked and the throughput was around 300mbps down and 600 up (+/-20)


R710/R610:
200.5 - Did not test, this FW kills the SECOND LAN port which I needed to use so I did not bother testing. I presume should be same or slightly better than 200.6



I think SpeedFlex is not a good tool. Maybe it's good to check AP to AP speeds. Because every time I tried AP to AP speedflex, always get a 1.3Gbps up/down between ap's. Client side testing does not stay within range of other tests mentioned above.

Also, whoever said enabling mesh, and/or arp filtering helped, it did not. I extensively tested and reset a bunch of times, if anything, arp filtering made it slower. Enabled mesh did absolutely nothing on my bench units.

Photo of EightOhTwoEleven

EightOhTwoEleven

  • 154 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
So 200.6 came out in 8-7-2018 .. I wonder if all products after this release date has been hosed. It does seem like since going to vSZ 5.0+ that things in our environment suck majorly. Before that, we were at 3.6.1 .. (3.6.2 was released around 9-14-2018 so that might be fine as well).
Photo of Dustin Marquess

Dustin Marquess

  • 11 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Sorry if this was already answered, I didn't see it.  Is there a rough mapping of "good' ZoneDirector versions?

Eg,

standalone 200.4 == ZD ???

standalone 200.5 == ZD ???

standalone 200.6 == ZD ???
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Hey all. Thanks for the useful thread. I’ve been following this for a couple weeks, and I recently submitted a ticket to Ruckus tying the slow down to the WPA encryption post 200.6, with a link to this thread. After 3 phone calls, passing them my logs, and a recent “escalation”, here’s today’s response.

“ Please be informed that multiple speed issues has been encountered with the R510 models across multiple networks.

Our engineering team has been involved already to fix the issue.

I will have a word with my internal Team and provide you an update by tomorrow.

Thank you.”

Here’s to hoping....I’ll pass tomorrow’s response when I get it. Not sure how quickly they’ll rush a firmware patch on an issue that’s existed for 2 years.
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3207 Posts
  • 486 Reply Likes
Hi Rich, may I have your ticket number and the bug ID, if they've given you one please?
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Case ID: 01031906
Photo of Sam Morduke

Sam Morduke

  • 15 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
At least they're either acknowledging the issue, or pretending to acknowledge it. Better than the typical denial everyone's been getting "we are unable to reproduce the problem"... so this is a good start, let's hope this gets resolved soon because this is starting to severely impact the Ruckus image. Although, seems like everyone keeps buying Ruckus. Let's hope Commscope cares more about the reputation than the previous holding company.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 26 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 26 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I am using RuckusSpeedflex software and that confirms the spdownload speed problem.   Then I used Fing to test the internet speed. Obviously, there is a problem. The download problem is not the incompatibility of unleashed with Speedtest. There is a real download problem!!!  Come on guys, get this issue fixed already. I’m sure you’re losing customers...  don’t you care?!
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 364 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
If you are using SpeedFlex best to run the SpeedFlex on a wired AP that you are not connected to via WiFi .
Photo of Seth Johnson

Seth Johnson

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I get totally different results using the freestanding SpeedFlex mobile app vs the test built into Unleashed. Neither SpeedFlex test required an internet connection, but the freestanding SpeedFlex app matches what I get from a single connection on Speedtest with a gigabit up/down connection.
Photo of Seth Johnson

Seth Johnson

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Earlier today I had a very short phone call with my "Technical Support Engineer" which resulted in the following:

-They've admitted that this is an ongoing issue which they were finally able to replicate in their labs, and promised an updated firmware "soon" to address the problem.  
-Despite asking them not to, they closed my case since my name was added to a larger case including all other users.  

Put simply, felt pretty "blown off", and I'm not holding my breath on any updates.  Pretty frustrating since I'm $$$ invested in a Ruckus Network.  

Good luck all, I'm going to start looking at other WAP options.  

Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3207 Posts
  • 486 Reply Likes
What's your ticket number Rich? 

The bug I'm following keeps pointing back to Speedflex test tool not reporting accurately since 200.7.  (NOTE: Use other tools for testing please)

What model AP, what client, and what tool(s) are you using to measure your throughtput?  Just between client <-> AP, or to the Internet thru your WAN link?

And I admit some bias, as an NPI engineer for Unleashed, I feel it's a very flexible/recoverable/mesh capable low cost no controller solution for 1 - 25 APs.
(Edited)
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Michael. I appreciate your reply. As stated in the comment above, my Case ID: is 01031906. 7150-c12p switch, r510 WAPS.

Using the non-ported version of SpeedFlex, I’m getting 1/3 to 1/4 download to upload speed. This only happens on WPA protected networks after 200.6. Using an open network, I’ll get full speed regardless of the tool used. (Even SpeedFlex)

The speed difference is evident on all tools used. Iperf, stand-alone SpeedFlex and all commercial Speedtest apps. If it’s only the SpeedFlex tool, why is it different on protected vs unprotected networks?

Pardon my frustration, but after my representative closed the ticket after I specifically requested he didn’t, I felt blown off. , I fee like it’s going to be another year til we have a solution.
Photo of Vesalius

Vesalius

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Seems as though at least some of the Ruckus Engineers and Staff are too quickly conflating 2 issues seen with the one confirmed issue they know. 

1. Speedflex test tool not reporting accurately since 200.7
2. Wave 2 AP's demonstrating slowdowns since 200.4 identifiable on iperf and other testing methods beyond Speedflex.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 22 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I'm getting very similar download results using speedflex or speedtest.net.  This thus seems an issue with the AP not being able to pass through full download speeds.
I'm using an R710 and an R720 unleashed.
Photo of Seth Johnson

Seth Johnson

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Michael - which Speedflex tool do they say is broken?  I get very different results from the freestanding Speedflex iPhone app than I get from the Speedflex function integrated in the Unleashed app or the web GUI. 

Only the freestanding Speedflex mobile app reflects the downstream throughput issues I see with commercial Speedtests.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Seth, it seems like this issue predominantly affects mobile devices. If you’re only seeing the issue on the mobile app, it could be the “mobile” or the “app”. My experience thus far is that It’s the device experiencing throughput issues regardless of the app testing it.
Photo of Seth Johnson

Seth Johnson

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi Rich - I am seeing the same throughput issues you've described across all devices when the network has WPA protection turned on.  I was simply hoping for clarity on the Speedflex issue that the Ruckus team keeps pointing to since I get such different results from two different versions of the tool.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Got it. Just making sure I didn’t miss something. Thanks for the quick reply.
Photo of hayk

hayk

  • 355 Posts
  • 54 Reply Likes
It's just soo sad, I just pick up a Unifi Nano HD for testing purposes for Non-high density situations using the latest firmware ending in x.80 and it out performs the R710 using unleashed 200.6.x  with my iPad Pro 2018. Yes in certain difficult situations and obstacles such as walls that have lead based painted underneath the current paint where RF is challenging the Ruckus outperforms. 

I know that unleashed 200.4.x still performs the best... ugh when will they fix it...

Photo of EightOhTwoEleven

EightOhTwoEleven

  • 139 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
It's nuts that a SOHO product outperforms an enterprise grade access point.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 22 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Couldn’t agree more. I have the exact same issue with my unleashed AP’s. Pathetic download speeds.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 22 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Any update Ruckus people?!  How pathetic that our 15 year old Apple wireless routers run circles around my R710 and R720 Unleashed AP's.  Really?!!!  With more people depending on wireless now, Ruckus Unleashed is not up to the task as downloads speeds remain an issue.  I've steered everyone here away from using Ruckus, just buy a $19.95 AP on Amazon if you want fast wireless...
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3207 Posts
  • 486 Reply Likes
Hi Michiel,
   What kind of client(s) are you using, and do you see an issue on all of them, or only one manufacturer?  Do you have latest drivers from that manufacturer and any tweaks that manufacturer has posted about their phones/books? 

    It doesn't appear to affect all devices/operating systems... is what our DE/QA are finding.
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 22 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
We have mainly Ample products and we see the same issue at all devices.  Using "SpeedFlex", I tried TCP and UDP with very similar results; about 50 Mb downlink speed and about 700 Uplink.  Same results for R710 and R720 unleashed.   200.8.10.3.243 firmware.
This has been an ongoing issue yet Ruckus is not able / does not care about fixing it. We are switching all our customers away from Ruckus as this download speed is unacceptable.  As I said, we deployed 15 year old Apple AP's that are running circles around the Ruckus AP's!!!!
Photo of Seth Johnson

Seth Johnson

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Michael - if this was purely a client issue, why would the download speed problem disappear when I set up an Unleashed WLAN with no password?  Also, our other APs/wireless routers don't seem to have any issue with these same devices.  When I turn on the wireless function of the modem/router I got for free with my gigabit fiber service, it delivers 6x-8x the download speeds I get from the password-protected Unleashed APs.
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3207 Posts
  • 486 Reply Likes
Correct, issue seen with encryption only, open auth no problems.
If you would open a ticket and provide info, ask for  link to ER-7956, the bug ID being tested.
Photo of EightOhTwoEleven

EightOhTwoEleven

  • 139 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
ER-7956 is going to be one hell of a bug once it's squashed. 
Photo of arrowcircle

arrowcircle

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Any official info about fixing (or not fixing) this issue? In these hard times silence is the worst way.
Photo of arrowcircle

arrowcircle

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Any official info about fixing (or not fixing) this issue? In these hard times silence is the worst way.
Photo of Trip

Trip

  • 2 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Anyone @Ruckus - How is this issue coming along? Do you think you'll have a fix rolling out soon, and for how many different 200.x firmware trains of Unleashed (200.7, 200.8, etc)? Thank you!
Photo of EightOhTwoEleven

EightOhTwoEleven

  • 146 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
That's the million dollar question isn't it?
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 26 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
It has been months and months and still no solution...  running 200.8.10.3.243 firmware on unleashed R710 and R720 AP's.  Upload speeds are great, download speeds are slower than on 15 year old APPLE wireless routers!  Yes!  Can you believe RUCKUS let's this go on and open?!  We've bought $19 AP's and they are running better than our Rucks AP's.  We will be selling all our Ruckus APs as there is -0- support from them.
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3240 Posts
  • 502 Reply Likes
And you mean specifically on your iOS phone and an encrypted WLAN?
Do you compare performance with any other type devices?
Do you have a case open I can look into?
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Michael. That holds true in my case (iOS). 200.6 works perfectly, but I’d like to manage my switch. A function added in 200.8. The problem consistent across all my apple devices running 200.7 and later.
Photo of Sander Groen

Sander Groen

  • 29 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Could it be a wireless chipset driver issue on the AP, which isn't manufactured by ruckus themselves? It could explain why it's taking them so long to troubleshoot and fix? They are at the mercy of the manufacturer?
Photo of phil fischer

phil fischer

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
After reading through these posts, I rolled back the firmware to the oldest I could find for Unleashed, 200.6.x  So far, so good.  Upload speeds are better as well as stability.  Before I would get kicked off of the 5G channel even if I was sitting a few feet away from the AP.  
Would like to try to roll it back to 200.5.x   Anyone have a copy they could Dropbox to me?
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3202 Posts
  • 484 Reply Likes
What model AP? 

There's 200.5.10.0.235 (GA) for R710 model APs available on the Support site.
Photo of phil fischer

phil fischer

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
R710.  I couldn't find anything prior to 200.6.x on the support site.  I'll look again.
Photo of phil fischer

phil fischer

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Copied and pasted, it came up.  R710_200.5.10.0.235.bl7 is the correct file?
Photo of zibei li

zibei li

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
any updates on this bug fixing?
Photo of Ventsislav Velkov

Ventsislav Velkov

  • 19 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
This is total bullshit... we stopped offering any Ruckus devices to potential new customers till this is ever resolved, which I am not sure it will be!
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 26 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Couldn't agree with you more!  For a company in this day and age to have a major flaw like this go unfixed for months on end is the kiss of death.  We've been selling AP's on eBay while we can.  If Ruckus goes out of business they'll be worthless.
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3254 Posts
  • 503 Reply Likes
Hello,

I'm on your side and I'm sharing your test results/feedback with Eng/QA, and we appreciate your TAC case logs.
This is a very important issue for us, and we're looking at every possible interaction between client/AP/target.
The one aspect that appears to be most relevant is the speed issue on single TCP streams.  There is ongoing
debugging happening in our labs, and I'll share info asap here.
(Edited)
Photo of arrowcircle

arrowcircle

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi Michael,

Problem is there are no transparency in Ruckus replies. This topic was created 8 month ago, and only after half a year Ruckus acknowledged, that there is something here. People provided logs and literally any information Ruckus asked.

And where are we now? There are no information about what's happening, no technical info, no status updates, no information about nature of the problem, no information about will or will not this problem is scheduled for fix.

"We are on it" for half a year is horrible in terms of transparency. Even after starting loosing clients, there are still no real information about it.

The one aspect that appears to be most relevant is the speed issue on single TCP streams.  There is ongoing
debugging happening in our labs, and I'll share info asap here
This looks like no info for me. And the further it goes, the more it looks like Ruckus just dont care about Unleashed firmware problems. For 6 months we see information was passed to technical department, but nothing changes.

If Ruckus decided to abandon active support of Unleashed firmware, just tell that and people will have actual information and will be able to decide what to do.

Telling nothing is horrible habit without any respect and care to your customers.
Photo of zibei li

zibei li

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Actually this also happens when you have a zonedirector.Not only happen under unleahsed firmware.
ruckus for sure losing customers and reputations.
Photo of EightOhTwoEleven

EightOhTwoEleven

  • 154 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Losing customers in a crowded industry does not bode well (especially since Aruba is so aggressive in our industry). We actually did a test with our vSZ by moving our biggest site from 5.1.2 back to 3.6.1 and things were solid. Fast speeds again and they said it was like a whole new network. I would say that SmartZone is affected as well. 
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Michael Brado,

I sincerely appreciate the fact that you stand behind your product.  I take pride in my work as well.  Unfortunately, for over a year your product's firmware has had significant connectivity and bandwidth issues with half of the mobile device market.  I recently moved into a smart home and was excited to see an enterprise grade system.  I also understood that there would be some "growing pains" since this system was never designed to work in a home environment.  

That being said, I've never owned a wireless antenna (router or WAP), that struggled to provide a usable signal 20 feet away.  I'm currently on my second replacement WAP, 17 feet away (no obstructions), and on the 2.4 band I'm getting an RSSI barely holding 68.  This means my Gigabit service translates into 30-40 upload/download.  (Yes... I've tried every iteration of balancing, TX power, channel deconfliction, channelfy and background scanning, etc.)

After speaking with multiple representatives, and starting a trouble ticket over a month ago, I'm out of options.  The QUICKEST action I've seen from RUCKUS was the removal of my last post requesting recommendations to replace my sub-par r510's (less than an hour)

Additionally, I've forwarded my complaints to my Lennar Customer Service representative.  The "Ruckus" heat-mapped WiFi is a huge selling point to their smart-home brand, and every neighbor I've spoken with is seeing the same sub-par performance (signal and speed).  I'm not sure what the implications will be if the foundation of their "smart-home" is flawed.  

Put simply, there is something very wrong with the Unleashed firmware, and although I was willing to work with your company to fix it, I've been ignored for the better part of 3-months.  Which tells me the problems at Ruckus extend beyond their firmware.  

Please reach out to me if you're willing to assist with additional troubleshooting.  As stated in my previous (now deleted) post, I'll be receiving my (other brand) replacements this Saturday.  
Photo of Ryan Hayes

Ryan Hayes

  • 12 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I also have a new Lennar home with these exact issues. Did you purchase your replacements for your 510s yourself? I have completely bypassed both of mine in favor of my ISPs router. It outperforms in every way from a closet in my laundry room. Who did you reach out to at Lennar? I'd like to lodge a similar complaint in hopes they'll move away from Ruckus altogether.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Ryan, sorry you’re stuck dealing with this too. I submitted a service request through the Lennar Service page. I first called them out for service because I was seeing 2/3 bars on my iPhone while line of sight with the WAP in addition to slow speeds. I used a WiFi analyzer to deconflict channels and also retrograded the firmware per this forum, but still had to have them come out.

They re-crimped the Cat6 and replaced the WAP. It seemed to fix it at first, but I’ve been struggling with dead spots and dropped devices ever since.

We use Apple TV’s in 3 rooms and they only maintain their connection because I created a dedicated WLAN just for them.

I recommend you contact your Lennar service rep and let them know that your heat-mapped home has dead spots. Notify them that you’re running the 200.6 firmware and that connectivity is still an issue, ultimately making your smart devices unreliable. They’ll pass you on to the local network rep who may be more receptive to your Ruckus woes.

Let me know if you have any luck.

As Michael reminded me in a direct message. Per the forum standards, please make sure we keep this conversation about troubleshooting these Ruckus issues, or they may delete the post.
(Edited)
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3223 Posts
  • 490 Reply Likes
Rich, a senior TSE will be reaching out to you shortly.  I hope you will give us another shot at troubleshooting please.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Looking forward to it. Thank you Michael.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Michael,

I spoke with Mr. Vargas (TSE) and Mr. Sharma (Lead Engineer?).  There were some audio difficulties, but the takeaway from the conversation was that they are still convinced the 200.7-8 speed issues were indication only (an issue with Speedflex).  I am the farthest thing from a network specialist, so I can't argue.  It just "seems" that the network performance matches the indications.  Overall, 200.6 performs better than 200.8.  In the simplest example, 4k media buffers on >200.7, but doesn't on 200.6 (both on Gigabit).  

Additionally, they were unable to address my signal strength issues.  Since it has to do with the placement of the WAPs (center of each floor), it falls back on the deployment of the system (Lennar), not Ruckus.  Again, I'm not a network architect, but if my ISP provided Gateway can cover my entire two-story home, I'm not sure why 2 Enterprise-grade WAP's can't.  

DESPITE MY FRUSTRATION, I really do appreciate you taking action on this and handling my case personally.  It's not every day that a single user gets to speak with a lead engineer.  I'll continue to follow this forum to see if there's any resolution.  Unfortunately, like many of us during the past several months, I've been working from home.  And at this point I NEED to address my intermittent connectivity and will be seeking other options.  

Cheers,
Rich
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 22 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
LOL. They probably had audio difficulties because they're using Ruckus Unleashed AP's!
For them to still be convinced these slowdown issues are "indication only" is borderline insane.  I can tell you download speeds are around 50mbps which is a reality, not just an indication.  These Ruckus Unleashed AP's are NOT WORKING.  What is it about that these "engineers" don't understand?!  This is too pathetic for words.  If we never have another Ruckus AP, it'd be fine with me.
Photo of Sander Groen

Sander Groen

  • 29 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi, at home I use 3 R710 and I do see that upload speeds are twice as fast as download speeds but more in the range of 200 mbps download and 400 mbps upload. This is on unleashed but via a zonedirector 1200 I see the same behaviour. I have never seen it so slow as 50 mbps on unleashed. My testing is mostly done from iOS devices and windows 10 pc's. I still get quite a solid download of around 200 mbps in my garden with everything closed. (around 4 cm thick glass). Since you are selling your R710's did you ever consider bringing one home, factory reset, and do some testing? Don't get me wrong I still think there is an issue in download vs upload speeds on 200.7/8 firmware.  
Photo of arrowcircle

arrowcircle

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
BTW, why engineers tell it's speedflex problem, if this topic have iperf3 results (with speed downgrade)? Or Ruckus engineers know more precise tool to test? Or just know how to use it?
Photo of phil fischer

phil fischer

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
It isn’t a SpeedFlex problem. It’s a firmware problem. 200.6.x, SpeedFlex results go up, 200.7.x or 200.8.x, results go down.
Photo of matt ferguson

matt ferguson

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
After reading this thread, I downgraded my 720, 710, and 510 to 200.6.  I have 600Mbps fiber to my house and I get 575Mbps when plugged in to my router or switch directly.  When running 200.8 I was getting 150Mbps max over wifi.  After down grading to 200.6, I am getting 400+ Mbps.  All tests were done on a single AP and confirmed 5ghz.  Also tested over multiple devices including IOS and no IOS.  Something needs to be done.  Now that I downgraded, I loose functionality in the AP such as switch monitoring.
(Edited)
Photo of Igor Vax

Igor Vax

  • 7 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Definitely, some of the early firmware damaged the access point, which created problems with the 5 GHz network (delays, low speed, ping). I have problems with 6 APs. In addition, it became impossible for me to work with AirPrint printers (Canon, HP connected to a separate wireless network in the 2.4Ghz range on the same APs with no isolated) if the client is connected to a 5 Ghz network - the printers are simply not located, printer restart helps, but after some time printer again lost from AirPrint. Therefore, I had to disconnect the 5Ghz network and work at lower speeds at 2.4Ghz where everything works as it should. But it's crazy to spend a lot of money to face such problems ...I'm already thinking about selling my wireless points. Can someone recommend specific APs brand with seamless roaming to replace R710 and R610?
Photo of Sander Groen

Sander Groen

  • 29 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Michael Brado, I assume Ruckus doesn't make the wireless chips on their AP's themselves? If that is the case, is there a difference in wireless chipset drivers between unleashed versions 200.5/200.6/200.7 and 200.8 on the R710 units?
Photo of JJ

JJ

  • 15 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
They went from kernel 2.6 to 3.x series kernel with 200.8 so it's a bit of a change, including new chipset drivers of course.
Photo of Darren Cheng

Darren Cheng

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Tested with R510, iPhone 11 Pro Max, ISP 800mbps/200mbps

Standalone 104
597mbps/199mbps
Ping 8/ Jitter 1.2

Standalone 106
543mbps/199mbps
Ping 6/ Jitter 1.7

Unleashed 200.6
502mbps/199mbps
Ping 7/ Jitter 1.7

Unleashed 200.8
322mbps/195mbps
Ping 7/ Jitter 1.5

I've found that old firmware (104) gave me fastest speed but the ping was not stable, latest firmware will slow the top speed down massively, decided to stay in Standalone 106 and wait for the fix, 106 gave me the best performance with lower and stable ping.
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3236 Posts
  • 499 Reply Likes
I shared your results with DE, thanks Darren.
Photo of Darren Cheng

Darren Cheng

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

I retested today, here’s the result

Unleashed

Speedtest download/upload/ping/jitter

200.4 597/199/8/1.2

200.5 493/195/7/0.78

200.6 494/199/7/0.5

200.7 505/199/6/0.9

200.8 457/197/6/0.7

Speedtest Single connection

200.4 393/138/8/1.9

200.5 471/138/6/0.7

200.6 488/137/7/0.8

200.7 505/199/6/0.9

200.8 457/197/6/0.7

Ping low/avg/high

200.4 4.8/9.4/11.2

200.5 3.1/8.0/11.9

200.6 3.7/9.3/11.0

200.7 4.1/9.2/11.2

200.8 4.4/9.6/11.2

iperf3

200.4 214

200.5 237

200.6 245

200.7 228

200.8 221

 

I flashed R510 from 200.4, then used webpage upgrade option one-by-one from 200.5 to 200.6 to 200.7 to 200.8 in unleashed, it seems doesn’t impact much for latest firmware, but once I flash it directly to 200.7 or 200.8 fro local downloaded file, the Speedtest result will be below 300mbps, I dunno what’s wrong. I did manually select channel, and turned off background scanning for 5GHz to achieve stable result.

For now, I will stay in 200.6 as it gave me the most consistent result 
Photo of zibei li

zibei li

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
hoping we can survive from coronavirus, and seeing the fix of ruckus firmware

otherwise firmware is no needed
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Michael,

My $80 replacements showed up yesterday, and now I'm averaging over 400 upload and download speeds without any range, bandwidth, jitter, or connectivity issues.  Two WAP's (with POE injectors), a POE powered cloud controller, and lifetime cloud management, for less than a single r510 (total investment $220).  

I truly appreciate your help on this, but I feel like the members of this forum have spent more time troubleshooting this bug than your Ruckus engineers.  I'll be closing my ticket with Mr. Sharma.  Please have him reach out to ANY other member of this forum, as I'm sure many would be glad to assist.  

Biggest takeaways:
-Jitter is a serious issue.  I was averaging 7ms with r510's, I'm seeing .5ms now
-Bandwidth Issue only exists on encrypted networks.  

As stated by the other users (who have WAY more experience than I do), I recommend you investigate chipset drivers or changes to the encryption algorithm since 200.6. 

All the best,
Rich M

Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3223 Posts
  • 490 Reply Likes
ACK and THX...
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3223 Posts
  • 490 Reply Likes
Mr Lee,

   Per our forums guidelines, we do not allow promotion of other company products nor recommending not to use our products.  That goes for your comment too EightOhTwoEleven...
(Edited)
Photo of Jun L.

Jun L.

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Michael,

That's the problem, there was no mention of what was replaced or replaced by what. Could have been a product replacement ruckus sent and charged Rich $80 for or a possible issue at the modem/router which was replaced and resolved the issue.

Since Rich is telling you about his solution and it worked, thought was a solution you two came up with, but by your response, seem like Rich have given up.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M

  • 13 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Mr Lee,

I went with another manufacturer. My post referencing the $80 replacements was intended to highlight the severity of Ruckus’ issue. If I can get better performance (and I am) out of an $80 WAP purchased on Amazon, with NO sacrifice in performance or remote management... Then their inconvenient firmware bug affecting a small number of users, is a much bigger marketing issue.

Out of respect for Michael and the forum rules, I won’t post the manufacturer; however, if you’ve reached my level of frustration, a short search on Amazon for WAPs, MIMO, and cloud management will get you close.

Good luck,
Rich
Photo of Michiel Schuitemaker

Michiel Schuitemaker

  • 22 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Same results here.  We're using an AP that was consumer / cheap 12 years ago and it's still faster in downloads than our new Ruckus Unleashed AP's!
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 576 Posts
  • 175 Reply Likes
FWIW, I think it's a useful data point to note that in the exact same RF environment, competing/alternate products that are of a similar configuration (i.e. 802.11ac wave 2, 2 spatial streams) are able to perform better. That more calls into question the behavior of the AP rather than the variables around the client and the RF environment.

However, with that said, it's not constructive or helpful to comment about leaving for another vendor over this issue. It seems clear that Michael understands the importance of this issue, but everyone seems to be having difficulty getting engineering to be able to replicate the symptoms.

For me this problem definitely looks worse on TCP and the fewer the simultaneous connections the worse the throughput seems to be. 
Photo of Michael Brado

Michael Brado, Official Rep

  • 3254 Posts
  • 503 Reply Likes
And our Engineering team is able to reproduce the issue(s) in their testing and are measuring different variables.
Feedback with results from all of your clients (mostly iOS) and encryption have been received.  We definitely do care
about performance of the Unleashed code, thru all APs, not just R710s.  I wish I had further information to share at
this time, but need to let you know this is an escalation in our system.
(Edited)
Photo of Ryan Hayes

Ryan Hayes

  • 12 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I would like to say that though the focus is on iOS devices, the problem persists on Android as well. I've been through many calls with Ruckus and have been unable to fix my R510's. With 200.8, I am now experiencing frequent drops of my 5ghz channel forcing my devices to switch to 2.4. Even when the channel comes back online (I can see the light on the AP), my devices won't switch back without a restart. This happens on my Android phone, Apple Phone, Apple TV and Amazon Fire devices. 
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 576 Posts
  • 175 Reply Likes
Hey Ryan, this sounds like a very different problem and it would be good to create another thread. If the AP is dropping the 5GHZ channel altogether, that is either a "target fail" event (sort of like a firmware crash), channel change, DFS event, or something along those lines. That's quite different from the discussion in this thread, where on both bands, the radio is up and stable but the observed throughput is much worse in the AP->client direction than the client->AP direction.