I agree with this, but would expect the SM to modulate down from 8X to 6X if the efficiency is low. It seems to be stuck in 8X despite needing to be in 4X or 6X mod.
BTW. At what point can you expect to see packet loss? It would be nice to be able to run a linktest and specify a max modulation. What does 72% efficiency at 8X mean? Will efficiency go up if it drops to 6X or run 100% if set to 4X? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Bill Prince via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the link efficiency is relative to the current mod mode. > > So you can have a high efficiency, even if you're only getting QPSK > modulation. > > Conversely, if you're getting poor efficiency but modulation at 256QAM, it > can "look" worse. > > In my opinion, the efficiency should be relative to the highest mod mode, > regardless of which mod mode you are running in. > > So an 8X/1X at 100% efficiency doesn't look better than 50% efficiency at > 8X/8X. > > That would make 100% efficiency at 8X/1X look like at least relative to > the total theoretical throughput instead of looking stellar at a piss-poor > modulation mode. > > bp > > On 10/8/2014 12:03 PM, Eric Muehleisen via Af wrote: > > I understand the difference in uplink. My concern is why the SM with > better downlink efficiency delivers much lower throughput. I've seen this > on other AP's as well. Maybe I'm missing something. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:53 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Your screenshots appear to be from the SM linktest pages. Notice one is >> transmitting 4X, thus the 9Mbps uplink. The other is 6X and 14Mbps uplink. >> >> For the downlink, look at the AP's session page to see what it's >> transmitting to those SMs and you'll have your answer. >> >> >> On 10/8/2014 1:38 PM, Eric Muehleisen via Af wrote: >> >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1578608/Public/450_linktest.jpg >>> >>> Two different SM's on the same AP with very similar signal qualities, >>> QoS, etc. However, the linktests are vey different. Has anyone see this >>> before? Software 3.1.3. >>> >> >> > >
