stupidbird wrote

I can't see QoS option in the TL-WA5210G. Maybe you can enable it in the main router? Theoretically IP QoS helps in this situation, but it's not a long-term policy.

@stupidbird seems you got the wrong idea of QOS, as I posted on #5 crazy deploy, as we all read, problems arise by week, why, cause he has no administration on the network, small WISPs do it with Miktotik RBs, and when you can't get the gear, you can do it with Gargoyle, QOS is just step one on network administration, I leave 2 links with great reading
Service (QOS) http://www.gargoyle-router.com/wiki/doku.php?id=qos
Common Scenarios http://www.gargoyle-router.com/wiki/doku.php?id=common_scenarios
Scenario modem when you can't set ISP modem in Bridge Mode
Scenario Household with Teenagers in case you want to Cap Internet
Scenario Gargoyle for Gamers A gamer, living with family who don't understand that every youtube video, every facebook refresh, every google search uses bandwidth and can cause you frustrating lag spikes.
Scenario Shared Internet connection in a Student share house, one student needs a lot more Bandwidth and pays a bigger share of the bill. Also, the big downloads degrade the performance everybody else.
Scenario Coffe shop with free wifi, There is a Coffee Shop providing Free Wifi. Every now and again some geek turns up, buys one coffee, sits in the back corner for 4 hours and the WiFi performance sux.

@ashreedeh

You already set up different separate channels, which is correct. So I know you must understand some basic principles of wireless.
But you are pushing too hard. One router --> 3 5210 --> 10 AP --> dozens of clients. As @danymarc said I don't think this scale can hold stably for a long time.

It worked months ago, however, you cannot forbid others to set up their own access points. Maybe the current radio environment is not as clean as before. And you must take care whether there are someone drains the network.

If available, I suggest to add more Access points instead of using repeater/bridge mode.

router ---> 5210 ))))) channel 1 ((((( 701_client_mode ---- another AP ))) channel 6

@danymarc Thank you danymarc, you show us the multiple usage of QoS. But I think what ashreedeh means is to control the bandwidth of every IP address, each one is treated equally. I can't see this policy in your case.
@Reacher You're right, this is the root measure.

stupidbird wrote

@danymarc Thank you danymarc, you show us the multiple usage of QoS. But I think what ashreedeh means is to control the bandwidth of every IP address, each one is treated equally. I can't see this policy in your case.

@stupidbird I didn't posted for @ashreedeh, I posted to you and any other that likes reading, and the scenario you want it's right there, you just didn't see it, QOS, Bandwidth Control, traffic shaping, Queues dif names to the same principle.
As I posted before this project is over his head, 5210 is G and 701 is N device sure he hasn't downgraded 701 to G to match 5210, sure his deploy is a umbrella of 3 5210s, 5210 has alot of power on its rear, if you have one, test it, you will be able to surf the web as far as 20 meters on 5210 rear, meaning that if he has 3, just imagine the noise, RF Armor never produced shields for Tp-Link gear, add to that 10 701s doing multipoint to a umbrella of 3 5210s without network administration, perfect scenario for disaster.
He posted a screen of one 5210 and I see its Version 2, there's no fix for V2, if he has V1 I would convert V1 to UBNT, and the701s I would convert them to Gárgoyle or OpenWrt, but that would be me

Very kind of you, thank you danymarc.
As seldom used devices of other vendor, I apply the description of 'QoS' in TP-LINK's habit. Anyway, you know what I mean.
And we all agree that @ashreedeh has better user other newer product, but it seems difficult in his country.