Not getting Combined Bandwidth Whatsoever!

Hi, I recently bought Peplink Balance 30 & updated it to latest Firmware v5.4.7 build 1648 hoping to combine my 3 WANs of 250KB/s download each into one 750KB/s in my own PC.
But the overall was a one WAN speed after trying every single load balancing algorithm with/without a customized rule !! (since I need it to be general).
Plus, QoS Application field is empty even after choosing App Compatibility level of Outbound Policy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t this unit supposed to aggregate 3 WANs Speeds into 1 after choosing the right LB algorithm/environment settings ?!
I almost tried everything but I’m so desperate right now to make this thing work!
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

How do you test your overall speed ? you have to download multiple files at the same time to gain access to the whole bandwidth or using download manager software like Internet Download Manager which can establish multiple sessions.
for the outbound policy you have to create a rule using weighted balance algorithm and choose Any destination and Any protocol and move the rule to the top of other rules.
please also set the upstream and downstream values on each WAN to the correct one according to your actual WAN speed assigned to you by your ISP.

I tested it with IDM using a link from Apple servers with 16 connections.
As to load distribution weight, doesn’t the scale refer to how much bandwidth can be used on each WAN out of 10?
What about the Default rule, should I leave it to Auto or change it to weighted balance?
Anyways, I already tried setting WANs to 10 and checked both options of the Default rule and got the same result= Speed of 1 WAN !
FYI, each WAN has an average of 2 Mbps download.
I feel like I’ve been missing something!
Thanks for the try anyway!

The Default rule is Weighted Balance (load balance among all WANs).

Did you see traffic flowing on each WAN link?

Are all the 3 WANs from the same provider?

1 Like
  • I have set it to that & the same thing.
  • Yes I did, it’s taking almost 1\3 speed of each WAN making the overall equals 1 WAN.
  • Yes they are!

This could be due to the 3 WANs are sharing the same pool of bandwidth at the backbone.

To test it our, get 3 laptops and connect directly with the WAN link. Perform a huge file transfer one the laptop one after another. You should notice the speed will reduce when the other laptop start the file transfer and further reduce when all transferring at the same time.

This is a common scenario with having the WANs from the same provider.

1 Like

WANs can work at their full speed when they’re connected individually but not the same time (via the dashboard).
So what are you suggesting? Should I take every WAN from different ISP or different Internet Company?
Why would this even happen?! It’s really weird & frustrating!

Getting every WAN from different ISP would be an alternative.

Usually this is the limitation at the ISP side when they have a pool of bandwidth allocated for all the users around the area on sharing basis.

1 Like

Then why am I getting doubled speed when teaming my dual NICs?! (though it has some bugs but it’s actually giving me 2 WANs bandwidth via 2 Ethernet Cables).

That’s the reason we would like you to test it out, get 3 laptops and connect directly with the WAN link. Perform a huge file transfer one the laptop one after another. You should notice the speed will reduce when the other laptop start the file transfer and further reduce when all transferring at the same time. See if this happen to you.

The problem will not be happening all the time. If there is less people sharing the bandwidth during that moment, you will still be able to get the full speed on 3 WANs.

1 Like

What’s the point of this test when nobody is using the bandwidth but me?! However I get the speed of 1 WAN all the time which is gathered from 1\3 speed of each WAN :frowning:

The point of the test is to confirm how much bandwidth you can consume from your ISP using multiple connections. It seems you think that this is guaranteed bandwidth on each connection, when in fact it is most likely a contended service. You mentioned that nobody else is using the bandwidth but you, but actually your neighbors and other customers of the same ISP are using the bandwidth as well.

1 Like

There is nobody else sharing my bandwidth since we get 1 full dedicated bandwidth of each user subscription.
When I connect 1 WAN via dashboard and disconnect the others, I get its full speed and the other WANs are acting the same when they’re working individually and that’s what driving me nuts.
I also got doubled download speed when I merged 2 WANs using dual NICs teaming technique that is supported by my MoBo so it’s definitely not ISP issue!
All I ever wanted is to combine my 3 WANs into 1 to get the maximum of it on my own PC but the router is acting weirdly by giving 1/3 bandwidth of each WAN when they’re working together in weighted balance algorithm!

I think the key point missed here is the original poster seems to be looking for bonded connectivity on a single PC. Load balancing wont accomplish this goal. That’s more SpeedFusion territory, which is completely different. Is it a single PC you are trying to get a single thread of all 3 wans working for?

1 Like

Yes, absolutely!
That’s exactly what I was trying to say from the beginning of this thread!
So I guess I picked the wrong device but does SpeedFusion fits my needs or is it designed for VPN,3G bonding purposes?
Thanks for the great info Kevin!

This article might give you a better picture.

1 Like

So there’s no way to bond WANs into a single pc for doubled internet bandwidth ?!
Well, I’m very disappointed.

Try doing a speedtest with SpeakEasy’s different servers. For example, almost all of them I get 20-25Mbps (3 x 30Mbps cable modem links) so some appear to disallow concurrent streams. However, New York, I pull 75Mbps. Another test (which is not free for use over and over but you can use it one time without registration) is at: or speedtest . net.

Also, you need to ensure you’re using normal compatibility or a custom configuration with full load balancing automatic between all links. After a lot of testing I finally nailed it down myself and locations which I can get 40-50ms ping times with concurrent downloads, it will push it near the 100Mbps capacity of the balance 30 that I have.

As mentioned, however, if you’re attempting to bond all of the links together full-time then that is something different. The Balance 30 will not do bonding automatically. I know it can get confusing but even without full bonding you can still achieve excellent download speeds via load-balancing (mentioned earlier in my post). Though, this is different than bonding where you take 2-3 x your link speed and add them up like a single connection. I haven’t done a lot of checking on doing it with the Peplink but I am certain (if you really want it bad enough) - you could get something like a cloud server from Amazon, configure PPTP/OpenVPN and use a server/gateway machine inside your network to connect to it. Doing so, you would need x number of NIC connections, each with individual IP’s, or virtual IP’s on a shared NIC. Then map to different IP’s/ports on the cloud server. OpenVPN, for example, can bond outbound connections however you’re still not going to be able to bond ingress… shrug I don’t see a simple way of doing this. Unless you fully remove the Peplink and just setup a linux/bsd box - use it to bond all connections direct to your modem and run dhcp from it… Or you could direct connect with your computer using multiple NIC’s and do bonding that way.

In any case, I don’t see any of this being as reliable or as simple as just using what you have in the Peplink and accepting it for what it is :wink:

Best of luck

Thanks for the detailed info Kevin, but I’m sure there’s much simpler way to do the bonding thing like using a special router or something …
I’ll do some more research on it since there might be a little faith left in me, I guess :confused:
Thanks again buddy!

Does anyone know if peplink balance 30 support LACP protocol or not?