# Best Wireless N + Gigabit Router that I can install Tomato on?



## thebeephaha (Feb 18, 2009)

I need to replace my WRT54GL with Tomato with a new N router with Gigabit support.

I need really good wireless range as well.

Any suggestions?

Budget must be under $150


----------



## mrhuggles (Feb 18, 2009)

an old computer with a wirelessN card, and gigabit lan cards?

openWRT has an x86 release, so does dd-wrt, maybe Tomato does too? sorry im not really familiar with it.


----------



## thebeephaha (Feb 18, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> an old computer with a wirelessN card, and gigabit lan cards?
> 
> openWRT has an x86 release, so does dd-wrt, maybe Tomato does too? sorry im not really familiar with it.



Uses too much power otherwise I'd do it.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 18, 2009)

What is tomato anyway?


----------



## Homeless (Feb 18, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> What is tomato anyway?



Custom firmware for routers that have broadcom chips and then some.  www.polarcloud.com


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 18, 2009)

Keep the WRT54GL, add a Gigabit switch and a Wireless N access point?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 18, 2009)

nt gives good advice... separate your infrastructure for reliability (and to save money) and allow a discrete rather than combined upgrade path. However, you will need 3 wall warts 

For ultimate speed, dont let ONE processor (in the router) have to handle internet modem, routing, port forwarding, wireless, WEP, WPA, firewall, multiswitch, and QoS.  Let THREE processors handle the workload to avoid bottlenecks.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 18, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> you will need 3 wall warts



Thats what a PowerSquid is for, $15 at Home Depot.  Not nearly as cool as a PowerGlove, but much more useful.


----------



## thebeephaha (Feb 18, 2009)

That access point looks pretty nice. For $50 I might as well give it a try.

I already have a Linksys 5 port gigabit switch so I will stick with that for now.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 18, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Thats what a PowerSquid is for, $15 at Home Depot.  Not nearly as cool as a PowerGlove, but much more useful.


LOL. Doesnt change the fact. 3 warts and more cables. 

So you do cable management "inside" the case... and show the pics... w00t... but then your house and under the desk is a freaking spaghetti monster.


----------



## mrhuggles (Feb 18, 2009)

he is right, that router can handle around 30mbit or so of routed traffic, a gigabit switch would be perfect and behind that, some kind of access point would be sweet, altho... maybe it would be better to get a wireless N router that supports tomato, and replace your current one with that? im guessing that would be the same price and would give you more stability as most soho equipment runs ick... VXWorks or worse, really old linux kernels with really bad configs that crash on too many connections tracked.

yeah maybe thats a good idea, back in the days i was suggesting to people to get avila gateworks routers for this exact reason,when its time to upgrade the WIFI you just switch out the card, and youll always have a good router regardless of what new technology comes along.

EDIT: omfg lemonadesoda, nice avatar.


----------



## dutchct (Mar 2, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Keep the WRT54GL, add a Gigabit switch and a Wireless N access point?



sorry to bring back an old thread.

just wondering what the point of the gigabit switch is?  can't i plug my wireless n access point directly into my router?

I'm considering this method along with the Netgear WNR3500L


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 2, 2010)

The gigabit switch is needed because the Original Poster's router wasn't gigabit, and he wanted to upgrade to gigabit.  If you already have a gigabit router, or don't want to run a gigabit network, the switch isn't needed.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 3, 2010)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122334&Tpk=WNR3500L


----------



## Wile E (Mar 3, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Keep the WRT54GL, add a Gigabit switch and a Wireless N access point?



Won't work. It will still have to pass thru the 54GL for DHCP on the network, therefore will only run at 100Mb, regardless of the switch being 1Gb. Thats from first hand experience. I tried putting a gig switch on a 100Mb router, and my network transfers only went up to 100Mb. You need a managed switch to do what you suggest. Might as well buy the N router with Gb built in at that point.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 3, 2010)

Wile E: i could be misunderstanding what you're saying, i wish to clarify.

If he hooks up a gigabit switch, any and all machines on that switch will communicate at gigabit speeds. it DOES NOT matter what the speed of the router is, as traffic does not go there - that is the entire point of a switched hub.

If he has a device connected to the router while he's on the gigabit, that will be limited to 100Mb due to the uplink being 100Mb - but he himself will not be.

Best layout: Router, gigabit switch, wireless N connected to giga switch. all PC's connected to the giga switch or wireless.



DHCP only hands out IP addresses, its completely irrelevant to speed, throughput and so on.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 3, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Won't work. It will still have to pass thru the 54GL for DHCP on the network, therefore will only run at 100Mb, regardless of the switch being 1Gb. Thats from first hand experience. I tried putting a gig switch on a 100Mb router, and my network transfers only went up to 100Mb. You need a managed switch to do what you suggest. Might as well buy the N router with Gb built in at that point.



So how does needing to go to the router to get an IP address assinged effect network transfer speeds?

And it will most definitely work, it is the setup I've used for 3 years now(though I use two gigabit switches in different areas of the house).  The only network traffic that every hits the router, and hence is limitted to 100Mbps, is internet traffic and the initial DHCP Lease when the computer is first turned on.  Any network transfers stay on the 1000Mbps switch, and will transfer at 1000Mbps.  And I've got the 120MB/s(limitted by the hard drive) windows file transfers to prove it...


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2010)

Hmmmm, my D-Link 5 port Gb switch would not give me better than 100Mb transfers when hooked to a 100Mb router. I bought it to bypass the router altogether to get better network transfer speeds, and all computers/components were hooked to the switch, not the router (Aside from the connection from the switch to the router, obviously). I had to upgrade to a Gb router to get better than 100Mb.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 4, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Hmmmm, my D-Link 5 port Gb switch would not give me better than 100Mb transfers when hooked to a 100Mb router. I bought it to bypass the router altogether to get better network transfer speeds, and all computers/components were hooked to the switch, not the router (Aside from the connection from the switch to the router, obviously). I had to upgrade to a Gb router to get better than 100Mb.



then obviously something was wrong with your network, outside of the router.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> then obviously something was wrong with your network, outside of the router.



Works perfectly fine with the Gb router. That's absolutely the only thing that changed. All wires went in the same place and everything. Identical layout with just a different router. Nothing hooked to the router's ports at all, except the switch, of course.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 4, 2010)

for example: windows vista limits speeds to ~10MB/s over the network if audio is playing. Even having WMP open (but paused) causes this.

Something like that could have totally screwed up your testing. We are stating with absolute fact, that you do not need a gigabit router to get gigabit speeds - if that was the case, we'd all disable DHCP and use manual IP addresses to get faster speeds.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2010)

Mussels said:


> for example: windows vista limits speeds to ~10MB/s over the network if audio is playing. Even having WMP open (but paused) causes this.
> 
> Something like that could have totally screwed up your testing. We are stating with absolute fact, that you do not need a gigabit router to get gigabit speeds - if that was the case, we'd all disable DHCP and use manual IP addresses to get faster speeds.



No, it wasn't a Vista or OS issue. This was with any OS, even linux. Perhaps I have a buggy switch, or my old ZyXel X550 MIMO was somehow incompatible with it? I'm no fool, I know how to perform standardized tests, going to a Gb router was the only thing that fixed it.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 4, 2010)

yeah, we dont know where the problem lies - we just know that you had a unique one.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 4, 2010)

That kinda pisses me off. I spent a long time trying to get the switch to work with the 100Mb router. lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 5, 2010)

Wile E said:


> That kinda pisses me off. I spent a long time trying to get the switch to work with the 100Mb router. lol



There are _some_ switches that will limit all traffic to 100mbps if one port is connected at 100mbps.  However, they are not supposed to do this.  The proper way is to just limit that port to 100mbps, and the rest still function at 1000mbps.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 5, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> There are _some_ switches that will limit all traffic to 100mbps if one port is connected at 100mbps.  However, they are not supposed to do this.  The proper way is to just limit that port to 100mbps, and the rest still function at 1000mbps.



a hub acts like that, but not a switch (switched hub) - all gigas are switched hubs however.

As you say however... it just shouldnt happen. Quite an odd issue, i agree. (still haven't figured out a viable reason for why it happened myself)


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 5, 2010)

Mussels said:


> a hub acts like that, but not a switch (switched hub) - all gigas are switched hubs however.
> 
> As you say however... it just shouldnt happen. Quite an odd issue, i agree. (still haven't figured out a viable reason for why it happened myself)



Correct, it shouldn't happen like that, but I've seen it do it with my own eye(otherwise I wouldn't believe it either).  The early consumer level cheap gigabit switches seemed to do it the most.  I recieved a few networking calls about this, and the problem was always solved by buying a slightly more higher end switch.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2010)

i even had a friend test a 10Mb non-switching hub, half duplex and everything... that one port slowed riiiiiight down (twas nasty lol) but the others still worked at full speed.


I suppose its possible you guys got a cheap arse switch that had a unique problem - would make sense if it was a brand thats not common here in Au (hence me never hearing about it)


----------



## Wile E (Mar 6, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Correct, it shouldn't happen like that, bit I've seen it do it with my own eye(otherwise I wouldn't believe it either).  The early consumer level cheap gigabit switches seemed to do it the most.  I recieved a few networking calls about this, and the problem was always solved by buying a slightly more higher end switch.



This is one of the early revisions of D-Link's 5 port Gb switch (non-green edition), so maybe it's one of those. I have suspicions that it has issues with my PS3 as well. I can't seem to get more than 250-300Mb to my ps3. I need a couple more ports now, so I might step up to a nicer 8 port model.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2010)

Wile E said:


> This is one of the early revisions of D-Link's 5 port Gb switch (non-green edition), so maybe it's one of those. I have suspicions that it has issues with my PS3 as well. I can't seem to get more than 250-300Mb to my ps3. I need a couple more ports now, so I might step up to a nicer 8 port model.



i have some asus gigaX one, 8 port gibabit... doesnt use an external power brick, internal 'psu' and only uses 4.5W of power. love it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 6, 2010)

Wile E said:


> This is one of the early revisions of D-Link's 5 port Gb switch (non-green edition), so maybe it's one of those. I have suspicions that it has issues with my PS3 as well. I can't seem to get more than 250-300Mb to my ps3. I need a couple more ports now, so I might step up to a nicer 8 port model.



The PS3 might be limitted by the hard drive in the PS3.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 7, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> The PS3 might be limitted by the hard drive in the PS3.



i'd say so - 2.5" drives arent known for fast write speeds.


----------



## hat (Mar 7, 2010)

Hrm... I added a switch to my network just now after reading this. Now instead of having the router in my room, I put it back next to the modem where it used to be. I moved the router to my room so I could connect my quake server with a wire (I didn't have a wire long enough to reach the router where it normally is), but I could have just put the switch there... why didn't I do that in the first place?

Now... I have a Netgear wireless access point that should work well with my Netgear wireless router. How much of a gain would I see from shutting down the wireless radio in the wireless router and using the access point as a dedicated wireless processor rather than having the router do it? Sometimes I worry about the number of connections utorrent hogs and how much it slows down the network...

There's only two wireless devices, my laptop and my mom's computer. My laptop only uses the wireless for maybe a few minutes out of the day as it connects to the WCG server, or on the rare occasion where I look up something on the laptop if my gaming computer is tied up... usually by a game and I don't want to exit it. However, when the router was in my room, the wireless would be going nuts all day if my mom was awake... she plays a loooot of farmville... it's sickening.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 7, 2010)

having the wireless running wont slow it down at all. wireless itself is just slow.


Utorrents connections are a large cause of jitter, sudden high pings and router disconnects. i have mine set to 20 connections max.

the only reason for using an access point, is to get it closer to the PC's than the router


----------



## hat (Mar 7, 2010)

Yeah, but without the router handling the work it takes to run wireless, like the security encryption and the MAC address filter and such, it should have more resources available to it, no?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 7, 2010)

hat said:


> Yeah, but without the router handling the work it takes to run wireless, like the security encryption and the MAC address filter and such, it should have more resources available to it, no?



no, cause it has dedicated hardware for it. regardless of what does the wireless, all connections still have to pass through the modem part of the router regardless, in the exact same way.


----------



## hat (Mar 7, 2010)

I see... so it's akin to having a processor to do most of the gruntwork, and having a graphics card to handle video-gruntwork...

Hrm, well I feel like giving it a try anyway. The worst that can happen in 0% performance gain...


----------



## Wile E (Mar 7, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> The PS3 might be limitted by the hard drive in the PS3.



The hard drive in it is a 120GB 7200rpm that averages 65MB/s read/write. I should be seeing at least 400+.


----------



## kid41212003 (Mar 7, 2010)

I believe only Layer 2 switch and up offer routing, all the pc connected to the switch will ask the 100Mbps router for routing and that can limit the transfer speed.

Even if the switch can do routing, it will still need to talk to the router and auto-routing itself with the router.

@Wile, did you try to unplug the router, assign manual IP address, and try to transfer files between pc to test for speed?

Sorry to the OP.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 7, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> I believe only Layer 2 switch and up offer routing, all the pc connected to the switch will ask the 100Mbps router for routing and that can limit the transfer speed.
> 
> Even if the switch can do routing, it will still need to talk to the router and auto-routing itself with the router.
> 
> ...



no, doesnt work that way. they do not pass through the router at all with LAN traffic - the entire purpose of a switched hub is that it takes the shortest route, and only on ports that it is required to.

i get 100MB/s + transfers here, with a 100Mb router, 1 Gigabit non-managed switch, and a 54Mb wireless access point off the giga switch.


----------



## TIGR (Mar 7, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Keep the WRT54GL, add a Gigabit switch and a Wireless N access point?



^^ This.


----------



## dcdivenut (Mar 9, 2010)

*hi all*

So I was reading this thread while looking for some wireless N router recommendations and think I found a whole other idea... let me explain

I live in a 5 level townhouse, actually about 3.5 stories. My home office is in the lowest level, living room is one floor up, and then two more levels to the master bedroom. My problem is getting good signal to the master bedroom. I have two constraints... 
1. Office is in the lowest level and need wired connection there
2. Living room (one floor up) is where TV is and I cannot split signal there b/c it causes signal problems. 

I do however basically have a patch panel from the office to the living room. Currently I have the modem and wireless router in the office, with my gaming PC and work PC connected wired. I also have a line running up to the living room and a Gigabit switch there with the Blu-ray, media PC and Squeezebox up there. I was frustrated because I couldn't move the router up to the living room to get better signal upstairs. 

however, after reading this I am thinking...  
1. leave modem and wireless router in my office, turn off wireless. 
2. Buy another GB switch and connect to router for my 2 PCs in the office
3. Buy a N access point and connect to current switch in living room.

Does this make sense? I would imagine I will get decent speeds, right? Sorry to ask what may be a stupid ? but I would rather figure it out here than go to the store and then have to return stuff if it doesn't work... also any thoughts/tips on wireless N access points? I have always lived in smaller apartments and never had to worry since a simple router took care of the whole space.

PS... 
1. I am pretty sure my router (DLink WBR2310) is not a gigabit router. Do I need to upgrade this to get GB speeds if the switches I use are all GB? I would like to make sure I am keeping the upgrade path clear and not having to buy more equipment down the road to get to GB although it is not essential.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Mar 9, 2010)

welcome to tpu buddy


----------



## dcdivenut (Mar 9, 2010)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> welcome to tpu buddy



Thanks... sorry to jump in with a ? right away, and appreciate the welcome.


----------



## Zedicus (Mar 15, 2010)

first for anyone looking for new hardware get one of theese.
http://www.tp-link.com/products/productDetails.asp?class=wlan&pmodel=TL-WR1043ND
about 75 shipped, less if yur a bargain hunter.  MIMO N and gigabit onboard, openwrt support, atheros based.  faster cpu then lynksis uses.

hanging a gig switch and N access point off of your old router is impractical.  also access points are routers unless configured to be bridges.  plus this can add a fair amount of latency if you are gaming.

2 options, 

1. get a new core router with built in wireless, and gig ports. if you run out of ports hang a gig switch off of it.

2. ditch the router and use a random pc that is always on as your 'router'  and have a gig switch and acces point behind it.  this has tons of pros and cons but is still a viable option since most people have a computer that is running 24x7 anyways.  set it up on a folding/crunching machine, routing doesnt take much power so it wont be noticed.


also wanted to add that going from the basement to the upper floor you will want to turn an antenna to radiate in that direction (lay it down flat, the waves come off of the antenna outward. like a donut getting bigger and bigger)  if that does not help enough then go for a powered directional antenna.

you should NEVER have all the antennas all lining up perfectly parallel to each other. this causes noise.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2010)

access points are not configured to be routers from the get go, or they would be called a router. You seem to be confused on that point - routers can be turned into access points, but not all access points are routers.

Why is it impractical? If you have a perfectly fine router (such as mine, which averages 6 months of uptime between resets) - why would i replace it with a router likely to be less awesome, when i can easily add gigabit or N functionality?


----------



## Zedicus (Mar 16, 2010)

most cheep access points are set up default to hand out private IP schemes.  sure if you get into the $400 and up access points most of thouse come bare and you have to config them to do anything before they are even usable. the average person is not putting one of thouse in their house.

your bandaiding devices on top of devices when 1 decent (sub 100$) device will do all of that. and if your current router only runs 6 months between reboots it is do for replacement.  look specifically for hardware that can run ddwrt or openwrt and you will be going YEARS and never thinking about rebooting the router.

im not saying its wrong, im just saying why have a router that the only thing it dsoes is hand out IP address, a switch that connects a hop away to provide gigabit, a access point (you probably disabled the wireless on the router, OR you only got an N 5GHZ access point and are using the router for backwards compatibility in B-G).  your just overcomplicating things and it will not be any better, and might be worse then having 1 single device. its 3 things to maintain, its 3 points of failure, its going to be 3 times the headache just  to use.  and your family will see no benefit over 1 devices doing all that same stuff.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2010)

Most access points are not set up to hand out any IPs, the router they are connected to(or whatever DHCP server is on the network handing out IPs) gives IPs.  Most cheap access points have no ability at all to hand out IPs themselves.


----------



## Zedicus (Mar 16, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Most access points are not set up to hand out any IPs, the router they are connected to(or whatever DHCP server is on the network handing out IPs) gives IPs.  Most cheap access points have no ability at all to hand out IPs themselves.



ive only been able to find devices like that labled as 'wireless bridges'.

most of the devices ive set up that home users have bought have had some sort of private ip scheme handed out default, and had to be set to 'bridge' mode to use upstream dhcp.

at work we have used cisco, netgear, and enterasys AP's all of thouse you have to console into and get basic setup done before they do anything.

i realise its totally dependent on the device purchased, just saying this is what ive seen.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2010)

Zedicus said:


> ive only been able to find devices like that labled as 'wireless bridges'.
> 
> most of the devices ive set up that home users have bought have had some sort of private ip scheme handed out default, and had to be set to 'bridge' mode to use upstream dhcp.
> 
> ...



Every cheap access point I've ever worked with has no ability to hand out IPs, that is what the DHCP server is for, Access Points by definition do not have the ability to hand out IPs.  The only IP related thing involved with access points is setting the static IP to access the access points config page.

There are positives and negatives to everything.  Yes, with 3 sepearte devices, there are 3 failure points.  You can argue that there is also higher latency, but really there isn't.  Ping on my network, from my main computer through 2 Gigabit switches to the router are less than 1ms.  Maybe if I was connected directly to the router it would be 0.1ms and with the switches it is 0.5ms, but really it is all under 1ms so the difference is relatively nothing.  Of course the negative to having one device do everything is that you now have one point of failure that brings you totally down.  If the router fails, the whole network dies.  With my setup, if the router dies, the network still works including wirless, I just loose internet access.  If the switch dies, I plug everything into the router and everything still works, I just loose gigabit.  If the access point dies, I just re-enable wireless on the router and everything still works, I just loose wireless N.


----------



## Zedicus (Mar 16, 2010)

so hang on to your old router as a backup, keep it on the shelf. personally i just did not want to manage 3 seperate devices. internally you are correct, there will not be enough added latency to make it noticeable.  nor is having 3 tiny devices going to amount to a hill of beans on your electric bill.  truly the ONLY real issue is why would you run 3 devices when 1 device does everything you want anyway. also, managemant of them is slightly more complex, but again not enough to make it a worthy  dealbreaker.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2010)

these access points you're talking about arent access points - they're wireless routers. your customers (or you) are simply getting confused between the two and buying a router to use as an access point, instead of just buying an access point.

I run about 5 devices - because its too damn expensive to get the same quality in one unit.


reliable, never disconnecting router w/ dual G wireless bands
smoothwall - the mere fact i have a smoothwall dictates that all WAN and LAN access MUST be after the smoothwall, so all in one hardware is not an option here.
8 port giga switch
5 port giga switch (far end of house)
second router as access point, for wifi access post-smoothwall


----------



## Zedicus (Mar 16, 2010)

ive never seen a device with 1 ethernet port and wireless brodcast capabilities labled as anything but iether an access point, or a bridge. but that really is only a side point to the convo.

smoothwall probably (m0n0wall i know for sure)  you can actually set up to be a firewall/router/wireless access all in one device.  for not to much money.

i too use gig switches in different rooms to get more ports where needed, thouse just add on, as getting 1 device with 24 gig ports is cost prohibitive.

i actually did away with my tru firewall and went to using openwrt as the firewall also.

1 device, firewall, dns, dhcp, wireless, router,   then a few accesory switches in the house.  1 point of manaagement.  keepin it simple.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2010)

Zedicus said:


> so hang on to your old router as a backup, keep it on the shelf. personally i just did not want to manage 3 seperate devices. internally you are correct, there will not be enough added latency to make it noticeable.  nor is having 3 tiny devices going to amount to a hill of beans on your electric bill.  truly the ONLY real issue is why would you run 3 devices when 1 device does everything you want anyway. also, managemant of them is slightly more complex, but again not enough to make it a worthy  dealbreaker.



The switches are unmanaged, so you really only have to manage 2 devices.  On top of that, for the most part, set up is the same on an access point as on a wireless router.  The only minor addition is setting up the static IP address on the access point, and logging onto that IP instead of the router IP.  And extra 2 minutes of setup time initally, and nothing extra after that...not really an issue.


----------



## dcdivenut (Mar 18, 2010)

Okay... so I reading all of this and thinking

1. Always on PC (I have one) acting as a router seems like a little more work than I am looking for. 
2. While I do like the look and price ($75)of the TL-WR1043ND route I am still worried about its ability to get quality signal from my basement to my top floor.

So I am thinking I have 2 options
1. stay with my current router, shutting off the wireless and buying a TL-SG1005D switch  for $35 to put in my office and get GB file x-fers and a TL-WA901ND access point for $56 to put in the living room, totalling ~ $90
2. buy the new router anyway so I have a decent router... I typically can go for a couple ofweeks between resets (which I know is crap but it is on my desk so no big deal) and since it is GB I won't need the switch and still add the access point upstairs, turning off the wireless on the router (or leaving it on, which ever is better). This would total about $125 but (I think) give me more more options down the road when I move in 7 months. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Trigger911 (Mar 19, 2010)

I got a rt-n16 and I am in flipping love and I did the internal hdd mod and got 2 usb left for other stuff. DD-WRT isn't much slower than tomato unless your in the GUI 24/7 just use putty.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 20, 2010)

Trigger911 said:


> I got a rt-n16 and I am in flipping love and I did the internal hdd mod and got 2 usb left for other stuff. DD-WRT isn't much slower than tomato unless your in the GUI 24/7 just use putty.



Gotta link to that mod?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Mar 29, 2010)

Link To Mod Nao


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Mar 29, 2010)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124332

what about the wrt320n,  its dual band wireless + gigabit and under 100 bucks.  its also uses dd-wrt firmware.


----------

