In newer Draytek models the perceived performance of wireless as been lacking based on earlier models such as the rock solid 2860n/plus with reduced range and throughput speeds, in particular poor VoIP performance for my industry.

This could be down to the passage of time and how WiFI has become even more ubiquitous, in demand and ultimately a more congested radio band. Regardless an alternative solution needs to be explored.

Previous dabbling with deployment of Unifi access points have yielded trouble fee results, so this would be a quick win. Trouble is, the default AC-Pro and AC-LR are in serious supply shortages at present. Wifi 6 variants have better stock availability but also have a higher purchase cost.

The only Unifi AC product that is plentiful is the NanoHD, so in desperation lets see if it is a justifiable upgrade to the Draytek offering…

Test Environment

There’s nothing scientific about the test setup here, I’m currently using a Draytek 2927ac for WiFi so will switch all home wireless traffic over to the Unifi AC-Nano (by cloning SSID and PSK) and observing any changes.

I’ll keep the Draytek radio’s active during use of the Nano, adding a ‘_D’ to the SSID to differentiate the devices for testing. This will also add a bit of competition on the radio spectrum that is now commonplace.

Location

The competing devices are placed within a foot of each other to give an accurate range comparison, I’ve chosen to suspend mount the Unifi as research suggests the antenna’s in the unit are somewhat directional.

As this is mounted on a fixture on the ground floor, I’d be interested on discovering WiFi performance on the first floor, ultimately to discover how directional the antenna’s are.

As mentioned, both Draytek and Unifi units will be broadcasting SSID’s and within a foot of each other, chosen as a worst case scenario of how each compete / compare in the radio spectrum (auto channel enabled on both).

Test Equipment

For simplicity, its a Samsung Galaxy Note9 using speedtest.net app, connecting to the same test server each time.

Test One

First test is an indoor line of sight, test phone is approx 25 feet away from the access points but still in line of sight.

Unifi:

Draytek:

I wouldn’t expect this to be a struggle, but both results were far shy of the available 550Mbps download bandwidth, however this could be down to the test server as it was kept as a constant. Upload reached full utilisation at 75Mbps.

Draytek wins this round.

Test Two

Relatively speaking I have a home that’s easy for Wifi, small and of traditional brick construction. To create a bit of a challenge for comparison the next will be from outside and within the car sitting on the drive, approx 50 foot distance

Unifi

Draytek

Something I’ve noticed during testing is the Unifi does seem to offer a better range over the Draytek, giving better bars / RSSI on the fringes of my network.

Results are pretty even, but from a VoIP perspective the latency and jitter under load is way too high to support real time media.

Test Three

More of a real world test, I have a Raspberry Pi Zero running in a garden shed running off a solar panel and 12V battery. The Pi Zero WiFi antenna is self contained on the chip, being a challenge to an access point to create a reliable connection to it from a distance.

The AC-Nano was installed on 9th June, although the ping times don’t show much of an improvement.

Summary

The results were disappointingly similar considering adding AC wireless to a Draytek router is around £40, compared to the £130 in buying the NanoHD (before required controller / Clouldkey).

Yes the NanoHD is not the most suitable product for the testing, but as mentioned this is the only one that has plentiful stock at the moment.

From testing, the Nano seems to advertise a better signal to devices than the Draytek, so ‘devices’ such as my car can pick up Wifi on the Nano where the Draytek could not.

But on comparison, this signal increase does not yield better throughput, devices that pick up the Draytek get more or less the same, with the Draytek advertising a greater speed.

From a VoIP perspective, where both pushed over 1 second latency on upload at load, neither can be considered a solution. I understand that a speedtest.net test aims to utilise all available bandwidth, but in real world scenarios, there nothing to stop any other application acquiring all available bandwidth during normal use and negatively affecting voice traffic at the same time.

Finally if you were wondering, suspending the NanoHD then using a device “behind” it (i.e above its location) worked fine.

Update: August 2021

Since initial testing I ended up reverting back to the Draytek for Wifi, as performance was the same and saved on powering another device. However I’ve now sourced an AC-Pro and replaced it in the same location as the NanoHD.

Performance with this model is improved, not so much from increased speed or reduced jitter but whats noticable is the reliability of devices on the fringes of range.

Below is a recent graph from the Pi Zero:

Its clear to see the AP-Pro’ installation on 9th Aug by the lowered ping times.

Its not perfect however as seen with the spikes, however am starting to suspect this is lining up with my activity in having other Wifi devices (laptop, mobile) in the same vicinity or between the Pi and Pro is causing these spikes.

If time permits I’d would like to revisit this compare the AC-Pro and NanoHD side by side, but for the original brief of is a NanoHD better than a Draytek, the answer is No.

There are many excellent guides for setting up a Unifi Controller on CentOS 7, three that helped me:

https://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/128121-installing-unifi-controller-on-centos

https://nivethan.dev/devlog/setting-up-unifi-controller-on-centos-7.html

https://binhminhitc.com/networks-solutions/how-to-installing-unifi-controller-on-centos/

However since these were penned there are a few changes in the setup that need to be worked around:

Workarounds

UniFi.unix.zip Download Link

Unifi have stopped advertising the Unix files on the downloads, instead opting to show only the .deb Debian package. To get a file suitable for CentOS…

Navigate to https://www.ui.com/download/unifi/ and choose the download for Unifi Network Application for Debian:

Clicking download icon gives the following link…

Make note of the version number (here 7.1.66) and edit into the the following link:

https://www.ubnt.com/downloads/unifi/7.1.66/UniFi.unix.zip

MongoDB

MongoDB is no longer included in the default CentOS or EPEL repositories, so its own repository needs to be added to your system for prerequisites

Source: https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/tutorial/install-mongodb-on-red-hat/#install-mongodb-community-edition

Create a new file at /etc/yum.repos.d/mongodb-org-5.0.repo

Insert the following into the file:

[mongodb-org-5.0]name=MongoDB Repositorybaseurl=https://repo.mongodb.org/yum/redhat/$releasever/mongodb-org/5.0/x86_64/gpgcheck=1enabled=1gpgkey=https://www.mongodb.org/static/pgp/server-5.0.asc

Installation is now via:

yum install -y mongodb-org

Installation Guide

Disable SELinux, reboot for changes to take effect

sed -i /etc/selinux/config -r -e 's/^SELINUX=.*/SELINUX=disabled/g'
reboot

Create file to include MongoDB repositories

nano /etc/yum.repos.d/mongodb-org-5.0.repo

Add the following to the new file

 [mongodb-org-5.0]name=MongoDB Repositorybaseurl=https://repo.mongodb.org/yum/redhat/$releasever/mongodb-org/5.0/x86_64/gpgcheck=1enabled=1gpgkey=https://www.mongodb.org/static/pgp/server-5.0.asc 

Install prerequisites

yum install -y mongodb-org java-1.8.0-openjdk unzip wget

Download Unifi Controller

wget https://www.ubnt.com/downloads/unifi/7.1.66/UniFi.unix.zip

Unzip files to /opt directory

unzip -q UniFi.unix.zip -d /opt

Create data folder within Unifi directory

mkdir /opt/UniFi/data

Add new user to run service

useradd -r ubnt

Assign ubnt ownership of Unifi directory

chown -R ubnt:ubnt /opt/UniFi

Create firewall rules to allow access to Controller

nano /etc/firewalld/zones/public.xml

Add the following to the file…

  <port protocol="tcp" port="8081"/>
  <port protocol="tcp" port="8080"/>
  <port protocol="tcp" port="8443"/>
  <port protocol="tcp" port="8880"/>
  <port protocol="tcp" port="8843"/>
  <port protocol="tcp" port="27117"/>
  <port protocol="udp" port="3478"/>

Reload firewall for changes to take

firewall-cmd --reload

Enable MongoDB to start with the system, start it for first time and check its running

systemctl enable mongod
systemctl start mongod
systemctl status mongod

Create the service for Unfi Controller

nano /etc/systemd/system/unifi.service

Enter the following in the new file

[Unit]
Description=UniFi AP Web Controller
After=syslog.target network.target

[Service]
Type=simple
User=ubnt
WorkingDirectory=/opt/UniFi
ExecStart=/usr/bin/java -jar /opt/UniFi/lib/ace.jar start 
ExecStop=/usr/bin/java -jar /opt/UniFi/lib/ace.jar stop
SuccessExitStatus=143

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

Enable Controller to start with system

systemctl enable unifi

Start the Unifi Controller

systemctl start unifi

Controller should now be available for setup by browsing to
https://{IP ADDRESS}:8443/

Unifi Testing

I need the Unifi Controller in order to test the Nano HD AP, why? This is the only Unifi AP in stock in the UK at the moment, all other more preferred AP’s like the Pro, LR and HD are unobtainium along with the Cloud Key. Therefore in desperation its time to test if these will make a worthy substitute.

Its early days at present, but should testing go well and I choose to adopt Unifi as my home Wifi solution, I’d be deploying a slim VM running Rocky 8 to manage the infrastructure.

So far for testing; the AP is positioned a foot away from a Draytek 2927ac, at moderate distances the Unifi Nano is showing a 10db advantage over the Draytek on 2.4Ghz range, but curiously a 10db disadvantage on the 5Ghz range. And while devices report a better signal strength on the Unifi, bandwidth speed tests yield poor results.

I would hope that the Pro’s performance would be an improvement on the Nano, but for now that is entirely speculation since getting hands on one is impossible without paying scalper prices.