Could you please clarify what is the purpose of 2.5G WAN on Brume 2 (GL-MT2500) while LAN is only 1G?
If my internet provider offers 2.5G I'll never get more than 1G on the end device, right?
My guess is marketing and to be one of the cool kids on the block.
I'm also curious too. Maybe it's due to the fact that multiple users can access the VPN servers so having 2.5G WAN gives more bandwidth if each client was to connect in (however I know wireguard speeds are way below the rated 2.5G) or maybe the USB filesharing can actually allow files to go directly over WAN and with SATA / USB capping at 5gbs then you would be able to use at least 2.5G of the speed instead of 1G?
OR maybe they just took the hardware straight from the Beryl AX, removed the WiFi and added a little RAM and realised that the 2.5G is actually not going to benefit anything because the only way 2.5G would have worked locally is if the clients were on WiFi? Which again, the Beryl AX has and the Brume 2 hasn't.
Anyway, let's see what their reasoning is.
VPN needs CPU power and this guy only has two cores, so it will never saturate 2.5Gbps port.
File sharing is out of question on USB3. I have yet to see a router that can read and transmit files over USB3 at 5Gbps ( 625MB/s ). Maybe at 150MB/s but not at 652MB/s.
1 Like
USB 3.0 can transfer easily at 500+ via a SATA TO USB adapter with an attached SSD.
Not saying this device is capable mind as I've not tried.
You probably have seen the 125MB figure because the bottleneck would have been the 1G LAN bottleneck. I can't see any reason why the brume 2 shouldn't be able to pull 200MB+ on USB3
CPU will likely will be the bottleneck to push 500MB/s over USB 3. I can't find any reviews or videos that clearly shows USB speed on this router.
Edit;
Here is a good video explains speeds of USBs. So 5Gbps can only do 3.6Gbps.
Theres a way to test the USB speeds I guess but I can't do it as my brume 2 is in production on my network. It would involve switching the WAN to LAN (which actually is probably a better use case for the 2.5G port as then local clients could benefit from the transfer speeds, if they have 2.5G or higher adapters)
So if anyone wants to test the throughput then try this.
Swap WAN to LAN
Attach SSD to USB3 and connected to a local client via ethernet, the local client must be synced at 2.5G and also have a SSD so it can accept the file at the higher speed (no HDD bottleneck then) see what it can achieve.
Anyway, going a bit off topic here.
If your internet provider gives 1G symmetric, the 2.5G WAN doesn't bottleneck the connection.
Most 1G WAN ports stop around 940/940 so you don't see the full 1G
I think you are right. It is better to be used as LAN. But you know, it is human perception, not a logic thing. There was already argument about the 2.5G port when the product launches. So eventually it is a free upgrade based on the 2.5G port does not add cost to 1G port.
GL-MT2500 doesn't have Wi-Fi at all
1 Like
Theoretical WiFi?
Found an answer.... kind of. In the video Flint 2 can only do 125MB/s - 300MB/s via USB 3.0 port, so the MT2500 will do 1/4 of that one a good day due to CPU bottleneck.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.