Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

First Take on Luma Experience


Recommended Posts

Just as another data point, I quickly tested the wifi speed on my Luma this morning as compared to my existing Apple Airport Extreme. (5th gen)  In both cases I was using an iPhone 6s with the speedtest.net app, standing about 10 feet from the router.  (Comcast is my ISP)

 

Average download/upload speed with the Airport Extreme:  57.1/6.2

 

Average download/upload speed with the Luma:  78.7/6.3

 

Clearly the Luma was faster, though I'm guessing that's because it was connecting to my phone via wireless AC and the Airport Extreme is (I think) limited to wireless N.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • itGeeks

    79

  • dz8

    39

  • cskenney

    15

  • awraynor

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personal Review: Luma 3-Pack White   Sorry, this won't be a crazy technical review. I'm a busy guy. Just wanted to provide my experience after having the Luma system for one day.   My Network  

More Updates   This product definitely looks rushed out the door. I have not had any performance or connection issues yet. Still good in that regard and speeds are fast throughout the house. BUT, af

I read your review on Amazon, You are spot on with it and you did it in a nice way. We can only hope things will get better going forward because god knows its been a rocky start. Only time will tell.

Just as another data point, I quickly tested the wifi speed on my Luma this morning as compared to my existing Apple Airport Extreme. (5th gen)  In both cases I was using an iPhone 6s with the speedtest.net app, standing about 10 feet from the router.  (Comcast is my ISP)

 

Average download/upload speed with the Airport Extreme:  57.1/6.2

 

Average download/upload speed with the Luma:  78.7/6.3

 

Clearly the Luma was faster, though I'm guessing that's because it was connecting to my phone via wireless AC and the Airport Extreme is (I think) limited to wireless N.   

I assume your upload speed is being throttled by your ISP, so that part of the comparison is not particularly useful. I would be interested in your upload numbers if you could make a band for band comparison. Also, what up and down numbers are being shown by the Luma software?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as another data point, I quickly tested the wifi speed on my Luma this morning as compared to my existing Apple Airport Extreme. (5th gen)  In both cases I was using an iPhone 6s with the speedtest.net app, standing about 10 feet from the router.  (Comcast is my ISP)

 

Average download/upload speed with the Airport Extreme:  57.1/6.2

 

Average download/upload speed with the Luma:  78.7/6.3

 

Clearly the Luma was faster, though I'm guessing that's because it was connecting to my phone via wireless AC and the Airport Extreme is (I think) limited to wireless N.   

In my post above, I meant your download speed, not your upload speed as a comparison. For some reason I'm not being allowed to edit that post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cskenney

There is a time limit on edits.

 

Download speed does seem important since he is getting two different values. However, what most people ignore is how devices are connecting. Are they using 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz? N or AC? How many channels are being used simultaneously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

It seems I am going to have a conference call with some people from Luma.  I know it has been said that Luma does in fact have a firewall however I have not been able to confirm this; the fact is that I have 7 ports open to the internet and that is of concern to me.  Additionally my previous routers always stealthed my ports rather than reported them closed. I've tested the claims of malware scanning and have found no evidence of this either; when a restriction is set, I have been able to verify subscription based blacklisting. I've addressed channel selection and have used iPerf to to test bandwidth steering.  I'm asking if there are any specific points you would like me to address?  I have the extra time at the moment so if I am able to help in make Luma a better product, then I'd be glad to.

 

The only thing I would ask is that if a claim is made or challenged, I'd always appreciate data so I can pass it on with confidence.

I concur with schoon in applauding you for your efforts and reviews on Amazon. I think the few of us that are remaining and hanging on with Luma are trying to make Luma a better product. As upset and PO as I am I am still hanging in here for the short term. I am trying to separate wants from needs for a device like this and I don't expect Luma to be everything that Untangle/Sophos/pfSence is providing for gateway security but like you I have found no evidence that Luma is providing any kind of security like they claim. I would be very interested in your findings after your conf call. Ask them how we test there so called enterprise security to validate there claim. As for the built in firewall there is one and that's y you are only showing some ports as open, That fact that the test is only showing closed and not stealth is another story. I do agree with you that any modern firewall over the last several years should be showing stealth and not simply closed, Good or bad Eero is the same. It seems both Eero and Luma have decided to include the most basic of firewall that they had to and no more. Cheap at best but there is some protection for what ever that's worth.

 

Other then iPerf I would like to know what other tools and test sites you used for testing Luma?

What did you use to validate you have 7 ports open?

What where the 7 port numbers open? Luma does have a few ports open for communication to there web service but its not 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

This is my first post here and I'm going to mention something that either doesn't concern most people or isn't a problem for them, since I haven't seen the issue raised.  My Luma 3-pack arrived this week and I set it up according to instructions. The setup seemed to go smoothly. The reason I purchased the Luma system was so I could have a strong signal throughout my 2600 sq.ft. house without using access points. I don't like switching SSIDs as I move around the house. I thought this would be a perfect solution. It is not. My Nighthawk R7000 (in access point mode and centrally located) gives me much greater internet speed than the Luma, even when I'm standing a few feet from the Luma. Why should my Netgear Nighthawk give me double the download speed and triple the upload speed that I get from the Luma? This is with the Netgear thirty feet away and the Luma only a few feet away, both with clear line-of-sight.

 

Since I can't access any settings for channels (or even see what channel I'm on) I have no idea how to change this. So yes, the Luma mesh network is convenient for me, but not at the cost of a drastic speed decrease. 

 

This morning I tried again to setup the Luma from scratch. Even after pushing the reset button, all I got was a spinning blue circle which eventually transitioned to a pulsing blue circle. I could see the Luma on the network, the software could not find it. Maybe I have to setup a new account? Maybe I have to use a new email address to setup a new account? Who knows? I would have given my second try more effort if I were actually satisfied with the performance, but why bother?

 

Two other things: I ordered this in February 2016 (on Amazon) with a promised delivery date in late April. That date came and went and a new delivery date was set for June. Nothing came in June. The actual delivery date was August 4. Repeated delays usually indicate a troublesome product. The other thing is this: If you don't log out of the software (at least in iOS) you leave your network password exposed. Since very few of us find it necessary -- or would remember -- to logout of iOS apps, I find this unacceptable. You should see a row of dots, not your naked PW, IMHO. If your kid picks up your iPad and touches the Luma icon, he's got your network pw, and maybe the pw to other things as well.

 

I called Amazon and they accepted this as a return. I'm heading to the UPS Store.

Did you already return the Luma's? If not we can chat. 

Thanks Chris, Did you ever get a response from the founders of Luma?

Chris did you ever get a response from the founders of Luma?

They don't seem to be re-tweeting any negative reviews, but plenty of glowing ones.

Not surprising, Would you have it any other way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

Who knows who they might be using for a marketing initiative.  It could be outsourced.  

Probably is in a joint effort with Luma themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

Using Speedtest.net, and about ten feet away from the Luma it was 35.44 down and 14.7 up. When I switched to my Nighthawk router I got 70.46 up and 80.57 down. This is an older gen 4 iPad without the AC band. I have Google Fiber which gives me about 940 mb up and down with ethernet. I don't expect blazing fast numbers with this particular tablet hardware, but I don't expect the comparison to be this bad. I wanted to try the setup with my Surface Pro 4, but that isn't supported. Curiously, the Luma software showed I was getting blazing fast download speeds, 209 mbps and zero upload. This number never changed no matter where I moved, so I believe it to be bogus. I took a screen grab but can't seem to upload it. Oh well, it went back to Amazon earlier today. 

 

I also want to observe, and I've been on WiFi since "B" band was the standard, that even though routers like the Nighthawk are ugly and have big, ugly antennas, there is a reason for that. A small, hidden antenna is not going to have the punch you get from a more powerful device, even though the "mesh" can distribute the signal more evenly. At least that's my uninformed opinion. I hope someone can correct me on this.

I see you already returned Luma so I all most did not bother to reply but I have decided to so you and others can learn, See below-

 

1. Apple devices in general are very finicky with wireless. I installed a Asus wireless router in my daughters place over two years ago and my son in law decided after hearing about speedtest.net from one of his friends decided to download the app to his iPhone and test his internet speeds that night only to find out his speeds where crap, He quickly texted me as the family IT person to ask y his upload speeds where much better then his download speeds and the fact that his upload speeds where more inline with what he was paying for from the ISP. I said to him that was very strange so I did a remote season to a laptop they own using TeamViewer and a speed test showed they where getting the correct speed from there ISP so I then did a google search for poor iPhone wireless speed and quickly discovered he was not alone, There where hundreds of users having the same problem with different brands of wireless routers. Lesson learned. I think apple is doing something none standard with wireless connectivity and that's y there are so many problems with Apple devices. Even Open-Mesh had problems with Apple devices at one point and they are an enterprise product. I know its easy to blame Luma for everything since there is so much negitive chater around but this may not be a Luma problem per say.

 

I can tell you I have FiOs fiber 150/150 and all my Android devices are getting 153 down and 160 Up behind Luma since day one with 5 ms ping. Luma did push a firmware update over the last few days to address some speed problems even though I have had none, I would wonder if you had the latest firmware?

 

As for the Luma app and the reported speeds, I would not worry about that as its a glitch in the app only with no affect on performance. My Luma app has been reporting I have 150 Down correct but only 65 up incorrect but with testing I am getting my full internet speed + sum.

 

When you tested Luma did you turn off the wireless on the Nighthawk?

 

As for your antenna statement I will challenge you on that, The fact is if external or internal has nothing to do with anything if the solution is good. I had a single Open-Mesh MR1750 installed on the first floor on a three story house and it covered not only all three story of my house but my entire outside property and it had "internal antennas" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

They just retweeted a review on Yahoo. Did they even read it. Talks about how incomplete and buggy the product, especially the software, is.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/luma-wifi-router-review-171834420.html

 

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Well Luma probably figured after trolling our forums they better start retweeting some negative reviews to derail what we are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...