GL-MT300A vs GL-MT300N-V2 OpenVPN performance

alzhao · 2017-12-19T13:39:42.000Z

MT300N-V2 has 10% to 20% increase in vpn performance. It has hardware acceleration but we didn’t enable it. It is said to have 20% increase again.

In my test, here is a comparison of mini routers and vpn speed in real environment

MT300N 8Mbps

MT300N-V2 10Mbps

MT300A 13Mbps

AR300M 17Mbps

coldtech · 2017-12-19T13:54:02.000Z

Thank you very much! Is there a way for the user to enable the hardware acceleration for the MT300N-V2, or any plans to do that?

alzhao · 2017-12-19T13:56:01.000Z

The users cannot do that. It includes driver development. Because the vpn performance increase is not that much, we have to balance its real value with the development cost.

coldtech · 2017-12-19T13:58:03.000Z

I understand. So I guess the best way to go for performance is still the AR300M, correct? Will there be any new portable mini router in the near future that can do better than the AR300M? If so, I could just wait a bit to purchase a new one.

coldtech · 2017-12-21T18:28:42.000Z

Since I was curios and they’re pretty cheap, I decided to get an MT300N-V2 to test its VPN speed.

So through a wired connection (and using Private Internet Access as VPN provider) I get:

MT300A: 1.31 MB/s peak, ~10.5 Mbit/s

MT300N-V2: 1.34 MB/s peak, ~10.7 Mbit/s

Firmware version was 2.264 on both.

So surprisingly, the MT300N-V2 is at least as fast as the MT300A. Still slow, mind you - but now it would be really interesting to see how the performance would be if the hardware acceleration was being used.

pesa1234 · 2018-01-30T19:01:18.000Z

Is it possible to add this feature please?

It is a very good router, but OpenVPN still slow…

alzhao · 2018-02-02T14:57:14.000Z

now we checked more details about openvpn and it cannot use hardware acceleration because of its design.

ipsec maybe able to use hardware acceleration.

We are making another small router and it has more powerful CPU than AR300M and AR750. Hope it will be available one month or two

coldtech · 2018-02-02T15:20:28.000Z

What about a version with two wireless modules so it is possible to create an encrypted access point WLAN while connected to an unencrypted hotel WiFi? Also that way wireless performance would be much better.

alpha1974 · 2018-02-03T03:18:23.000Z

Just wait for wireguard VPN! Here are my results with clean LEDE on AR300M-Lite (iperf3 through wireguard tunnel between AR300M and a local test server):

root@LEDE:~# iperf3 -c 10.0.10.1
Connecting to host 10.0.10.1, port 5201
[ 4] local 10.0.10.3 port 50784 connected to 10.0.10.1 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 6.43 MBytes 53.9 Mbits/sec 0 123 KBytes
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 6.50 MBytes 54.5 Mbits/sec 0 158 KBytes
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 6.56 MBytes 55.0 Mbits/sec 0 176 KBytes
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 6.44 MBytes 54.1 Mbits/sec 0 186 KBytes
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 6.50 MBytes 54.5 Mbits/sec 0 195 KBytes
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 6.50 MBytes 54.5 Mbits/sec 0 206 KBytes
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 6.62 MBytes 55.5 Mbits/sec 0 206 KBytes
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 6.50 MBytes 54.5 Mbits/sec 0 206 KBytes
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 6.81 MBytes 57.1 Mbits/sec 0 291 KBytes
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 6.44 MBytes 54.0 Mbits/sec 0 291 KBytes

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 65.3 MBytes 54.8 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 64.5 MBytes 54.1 Mbits/sec receiver

iperf Done.
root@LEDE:~# iperf3 -c 10.0.10.1 -R
Connecting to host 10.0.10.1, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 10.0.10.1 is sending
[ 4] local 10.0.10.3 port 50788 connected to 10.0.10.1 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 7.79 MBytes 65.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.01 sec 8.71 MBytes 72.4 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.01-3.00 sec 8.31 MBytes 70.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 8.69 MBytes 72.9 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.01 sec 8.68 MBytes 72.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.01-6.01 sec 8.44 MBytes 70.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.01-7.02 sec 8.78 MBytes 72.7 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.02-8.00 sec 8.34 MBytes 71.3 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 8.60 MBytes 72.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.01 sec 8.44 MBytes 70.2 Mbits/sec

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 86.3 MBytes 72.3 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.01 sec 85.3 MBytes 71.4 Mbits/sec receiver

iperf Done.

pabzter · 2018-02-11T11:03:56.000Z

a new small router? can you provide any specifics?

lostdog · 2018-02-12T14:14:04.000Z

@Alzhao,

A new router sounds with more powerful CPU sounds great. I think what many people are looking for is hardware that has higher OpenVPN performance. Will the new router use hardware crypto rather than software which relies on a faster CPU?

While I love my AR300M I’ll pick up a new router immediately if it can improve on OpenVPN / Shadowsocks performance.

coldtech · 2018-02-12T14:18:36.000Z

Just a reminder: Hardware acceleration is not possible for OpenVPN, it’s only possible with IPsec. So for OpenVPN, it will always be up to the CPU to do the work.

alzhao · 2018-02-13T10:38:15.095Z

Yes. The results is, openwvn cannot use hardware acceleration, only possible for cpu power.

alzhao · 2018-02-13T10:39:05.821Z

Any link for your vpn protocol?

Also for local server is is much faster.

lostdog · 2018-02-15T14:04:18.330Z

Huh. After all these years I did not realize that. Seems crazy hardware acceleration is not used.

Alrighty then… more CPU power it is!

z0rg · 2018-03-05T06:16:50.611Z

lostdog:

Alrighty then… more CPU power it is!

I don’t think so. Why upgrade to more and more powerful hardware if performance can already be increased 10x-20x with Wireguard. I would hope for Wireguard Support within the VPN section of the next Firmware version. That would speed shit up a lot!

coldtech · 2018-03-05T09:06:50.209Z

That only works if the server uses it too, does it not? As long as OpenVPN needs to be used (because that’s the only thing a particular server offers), acceleration is just not possible. Then more CPU processing power is the only option.

Enelass · 2023-07-04T07:15:55.322Z

Hosting a OpenVPN Server on my GLiNet lead me to very poor performance:
With over 80% Speed Degradation, Dl went from 49Mbps to 10Mbps at best, 3Mbps at worst with WiFi…
Troubleshooting:

Hosting the OpenVPN Server on GLiNet with multiple GL.iNet hardware (GL-MT300N-V2 & GL-SFT1200), different clients(iPhone and Laptop), Tried WiFi and Wired, Tried tweaking encryption scheme on server and client ovpn same performance issues.
Hosting the OpenVPN Server on AWS Ubuntu (Free Tier) and running the client from my Laptop and the speed is now mind-blowing… 0 latency, 0 bottleneck, full speed.
Import that same client profile on the GLiNet OpenVPN Client… It works but the connection is now degraded again at 10Mbps . The issue clearly lies with the GLiNet hardware…

Very disappointing, I would be willing to pay more $$$ of a more powerful GLiNet model that lets me reach full speed (50Mbps)

alzhao · 2023-07-04T07:54:42.098Z

It is 5 year old post. The OpenVPN speed on MT3000, AXT1800, MT2500 has been increased to 150Mbps.

Enelass · 2023-07-04T10:51:14.041Z

OpenVPN Performance1594×837 95.1 KB

Thank you for the prompt, response.

I truly wish you’d be right, but here it is… from the moment I use GL.iNet either as a Server or as a Client, my bandwidth drops to ~10Mbps.
Based on my troubleshooting, I know that:

It isn’t related to a hardware fault from the cable since without VPN the connection get to 45Mbps
It isn’t related to a hardware issue on the GLiNet since I used two different GL.iNet products
It isn’t related to a software glitch or misconfiguration, since I set it up on two different products using two different server.ovpn & client.ovpn + tried again after performing a factory reset.
It isn’t related to OVPN client, since I tried two different clients (Windows Laptop or iOS iPhone) and get 45Mbps when connecting to AWS Ubuntu ovpn server
It isn’t related to the ovpn server, since I get to 45Mbps when setting it up on AWS Ubuntu.

The issue can only be reproduced when putting GL.iNet into the mix… whether as a server and/or as a client.