How many clients can a router handle?

[xarrisx]

Here is my network?
Simple ISP 4 port modem-router (ip 192.168.1.1) DSL 24mbps
Port 1: Wireless Router(Ubiquitti nanostation) Lan IP:192.168.1.2 - WLAN IP:192.168.2.1
Port 2: Wireless Router(Ubiquitti nanostation) Lan IP:192.168.1.3 - WLAN IP:192.168.3.1
Each Wireless Router has about 20 wireless client

The problem is that the speed inside the network is very good but the internet connection has many problems(too much lag, pages not loading at all, etc) even if bandwidth used from all users is 3-4mbps total.
I tried to disconnect either nanostation from the modem and everything worked ok.(but both of them didn't)


So i suspect that the modem-router cannot handle too many connections!!!
My question is: Is the router responsible for handling all 40 users and is overloaded or each nanostation is responsible for handling 20 users and the modem-router is responsible only for 2 devices(nanostations).. And if it is the second- then what else could be the fault?

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[riser]

Each wireless router is also handling the layer 2 switching? Basically the router is also acting like a switch for internal communicate (ie not using the internet)?

How many connections is an arbitrary because we do not know exactly what is being done by the clients.

If your two wireless routers used a separate switch to handle internal traffic, it may increase your internet performance.

Do the two wireless routers communicate over wireless or a wire?

 

[xarrisx]

Clients are normal internet users(watching youtube,web browsing skype, playing games etc)
There is no need for one client to connect to another client (no file-printer sharing etc)
everyone is using the network to access the internet.

The two access points are both connected via wire to the modem(this is modem,router, 4 port switch)
One AP is 2.4ghz and the other is 5ghz
There are no wired client connections to the network


**Each wireless router is also handling the layer 2 switching?
I am not sure about what you ask me here but NAT is enabled on both AP if this helps


______ AP1 - - - - - -- - - - - Clients
|wired wireless
|
modem|
| wired wireless
|______ AP2 - - - - - -- - - - - -- Clients

 

[Hawkeye22]

Routers aren't based on the number of clients, but by their backplane speed. When this speed is reached or the backplane is saturated, you will notice a performance hit. If the router is rated for 20Gb/s then you have to make sure that the total of the cleints bandwidth isn't maxing out the router. If these are enterprise routers, you can monitor the CPU, memory, and bandwidth load on the router. Since these sound like small SOHO routers, I doubt you'll be able to obtain much information about them.

 

[riser]

Any kind of video is high demand on the internet connection. That is likely your bottleneck. You can contact them and they should be able to track your usage and determine if you need to upgrade your internet or employ some form of QoS.

The original path I was going down would have been to connect the wireless to a switch, that switch to the router. This would segment off internet traffic from the local network. This does not appear to be an issue though.

 

[ngrego]

Why are you using different vlans on WLAN?
Lan IP:192.168.1.2 - WLAN IP:192.168.2.1
Lan IP:192.168.1.3 - WLAN IP:192.168.3.1

What is the address range of your DHCP server?

 

[xarrisx]

Thanks for all the replies!
The problem is that when i check how much bandwidth is used it is most times 3-4 mbps(on 20+ mbps line)
So i supposed that it must be something else. I also tested the line and there are no problems with the isp(giving me less speed etc).

My APs are both NAT routers on the above example.
i also tried to set them as bridges and every client,AP,modem on the same network but still the problem remains.

 

[ngrego]

If you are using IPs 192.168.1.1-3 for LAN you should be using 192.168.1.4-5 for WLAN! Addresses 192.168.2.xxx and 192.168.3.xxx are in a different VLAN than 192.168.1.xxx! Tipically a user with a 192.168.1.xxx address cannot communicate with a user with a 192.168.2.xxx or 192.168.3.xxx address, unless you are managing this yourself.
Was this setup working in the past?