if it ain't broken- don't fix it (DD-WRT vs linksys firmware)

superczar · Jun 30, 2008

aeons ago, I bought a Linksys WRT54G router...

it worked fine till the tweak (= firmware flash to dd-wrt) bug bit me...

so i happily flashed the original firmware to add several new bling features (which in retrospect were pretty much useless for me...i mean why would i need something like hotspot redirection/radius server for a home network?)

Things worked perfectly fine after the upgrade (?) flash to DD-WRT...

Over time, my network grew...I added a home server, NAS drive, additional PCs etc to the network and the router started groaning under the weight

Slowdowns/router crash (requiring restart) became more & more frequent...

Thankfully, I was too lazy to get myself a new router

Finally, after a day when the router needed 4 restarts in a span of 2 hours, I decided to buy a new router...

but wait, why should I not try reverting back to the original firmware from Linksys

And I did....

And my router woes are gone! :hap2:

Now I know that there are many happy DD-WRT (or other 3rd party firmware) users here...

Ask yourself a quetion...did you gain any additional benefits with the new firmware?

now wait till the number of devices/traffic on your home network grows and see how DD-WRT behaves

speaking for myself, I only got additional trouble for all the effort I put into the 3rd party firmware flash and was about to lose a couple of K hard earned bucks till thankfully good sense prevailed and I reverted back to the original firmware..

Oh, and why am I posting this? In the hope that some other troubleD DD-WRT user with frequent router slowdown or crash stumbles upon this rant...

Checksum · Jun 30, 2008

Haven't tried DD-WRT but tomato firmware makes a hell of a difference on my Buffalo G125. I do have about three PC connected to it, and the tomato firmware performs MUCH better when compared to the original firmware.

Not entirely connected to your rant, but still

linuxtechie · Jul 1, 2008

Checksum said:
Haven't tried DD-WRT but tomato firmware makes a hell of a difference on my Buffalo G125. I do have about three PC connected to it, and the tomato firmware performs MUCH better when compared to the original firmware.

Not entirely connected to your rant, but still

tomato is much stable, whereas dd-wrt, as mentioned has more bling bling.

Your choice.

~LT

Switch · Jul 1, 2008

Well... I am using a Linksys at office and a Buffalo at home and am on stock firmwares. I honestly dont face any problems with stock firmwares(Yup i ocassionaly do a firmware update). Initially i had problems with my Linksys when after i used to shut down utroornt the ip needed to be renewd for firefox to work but that problem later ironed out with the newer firmware. I honestly dont see the need to flash to a different frmware but that could just be me.

And yes i have always beleived in the golden rule of netwroking... If it aint broken... Dont fix it... So yes i am with you on this cazr but i mostly apply this to networking and nothing else

Supra · Jul 1, 2008

DD-WRT is a big bloatware ! Try out tomato & see if u really feel the difference or not ! With p2p downloads gng on browing is a pain with stock firmware, but with tomato it really made a big difference to me

Anish · Jul 1, 2008

Switch said:
And yes i have always beleived in the golden rule of netwroking... If it aint broken... Dont fix it... So yes i am with you on this cazr but i mostly apply this to networking and nothing else

Absolutely! +1 here. I'm pretty happy with my stock Linksys firmware and until I discover there's something that 3rd party can offer (Which makes a truckload of difference), I'm sitting tight.

Nice thread, czar, I'm sure many folks will post up harrowing networking nightmares!

rushabht · Jul 1, 2008

Well czar i can understand your pain, because i had gone through the same situation after using DD-WRT. I ended up with numerous reboots, and lots of instability issues. Moral of the story - dont use DD-WRT.

superczar · Jul 1, 2008

Moral of the story - dont use DD-WRT

Actually the moral of the story goes a little beyond that

The idea being unless there is a compelling reason to execute a complex tweak like flashing 3rd party firmware (on your router or elsewhere )(other than just for the fun of it), you might as well give it a skip..

This holds true especially for products from relatively trustworthy brands because it is fair to assume their engineers with access to the fill design details would build a good firmware and improving upon which will be difficult , if not impossible for a bunch of enthusiast outsiders.

Which also reminds me of the silly Linux base firmware for the ipod - Rockbox

The rockbox team never implemented proper power management on the firmware (the apple firmware reads ahead and caches the current rack + some and turns off the HDD till the cache is emptied)needless to say, Rockbox users got pathetic battery lifes and a few weeks or a month of rockbox usage screwed up the battery totally

(Please correct me if that is not the case as the Rockbox folks may have fixed up the issue in later iterations )

rushabht · Jul 1, 2008

superczar said:
Actually the moral of the story goes a little beyond that
The idea being unless there is a compelling reason to execute a complex tweak like flashing 3rd party firmware (on your router or elsewhere )(other than just for the fun of it), you might as well give it a skip..

This holds true especially for products from relatively trustworthy brands because it is fair to assume their engineers with access to the fill design details would build a good firmware and improving upon which will be difficult , if not impossible for a bunch of enthusiast outsiders.

Which also reminds me of the silly Linux base firmware for the ipod - Rockbox
The rockbox team never implemented proper power management on the firmware (the apple firmware reads ahead and caches the current rack + some and turns off the HDD till the cache is emptied)needless to say, Rockbox users got pathetic battery lifes and a few weeks or a month of rockbox usage screwed up the battery totally
(Please correct me if that is not the case as the Rockbox folks may have fixed up the issue in later iterations )

Yup pretty much agree with you on that. Same is the case with DD-WRT, brainslayer who is the author of the firmware got very greedy after his firmware got popular. So he ended up adding more and more bloat to his firmware which made DD-WRT extremely unstable. Thats where tomato came in and outshun the bloat. So imho just one screwup with DD-WRT can be a bad enough experience for someone to stick to their stock firmwares if they dont want the bling-bling firmware

hyeah:

TechHead · Jul 1, 2008

superczar said:
Actually the moral of the story goes a little beyond that
The idea being unless there is a compelling reason to execute a complex tweak like flashing 3rd party firmware (on your router or elsewhere )(other than just for the fun of it), you might as well give it a skip..

This holds true especially for products from relatively trustworthy brands because it is fair to assume their engineers with access to the fill design details would build a good firmware and improving upon which will be difficult , if not impossible for a bunch of enthusiast outsiders.

Which also reminds me of the silly Linux base firmware for the ipod - Rockbox
The rockbox team never implemented proper power management on the firmware (the apple firmware reads ahead and caches the current rack + some and turns off the HDD till the cache is emptied)needless to say, Rockbox users got pathetic battery lifes and a few weeks or a month of rockbox usage screwed up the battery totally
(Please correct me if that is not the case as the Rockbox folks may have fixed up the issue in later iterations )

Yea, fixed now though. Rockbox ports for iRiver and Sandisk are extremely stable, adding more features, and even improved battery life on the h120/140.

greenhorn · Jul 1, 2008

I have a v7, so cant even think of flashing

Checksum · Jul 1, 2008

Which also reminds me of the silly Linux base firmware for the ipod - Rockbox

The rockbox team never implemented proper power management on the firmware (the apple firmware reads ahead and caches the current rack + some and turns off the HDD till the cache is emptied)needless to say, Rockbox users got pathetic battery lifes and a few weeks or a month of rockbox usage screwed up the battery totally

(Please correct me if that is not the case as the Rockbox folks may have fixed up the issue in later iterations )

It may just be me, but rockbox actually gives better battery life than the original firmware for me on my ipod nano first gen. No idea whats happening, but i'm happy

raul · Jul 1, 2008

I have been using a Buffalo HPG54 for some time now and am still on original buffalo firmware. For those who know know me this has required an immense feat of self control because there is nothing I like more than tinkering aimlessly.

I know Tomato is good and has certain extended functionality but since I don't really need traffic shaping or some of the other functions I have abstained and the default Buffalo firmware is robust and stable.

However I will soon need to add a wireless point to a piece if equipment that only has wired lan and since I have an extra Buffalo router I was thinking of installing Tomoto firmware on it so I can covert it into a wireless ethernet bridge. Or I could use the default firmware and try to use Buffalo WDS. Let's see what works better.