Ok Well I suppose I can try 10mhz on all AP's. I think I will see what Cambium support can offer for 20mhz first but I thought maybe someone had a easy suggestion.
Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:00:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I have seen times when 10MHz gets better throughput than 20MHz. It all depends on the ambient noise. We recently changed one subnet from 20MHz to 10MHz, and throughput and SNR both got better. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 6/6/2015 7:50 PM, Craig House wrote: > Yeah I have ran Edetect Mostly it sees nothing and doesn't tell me much if > it does. I agree the front end sucks but it is tolerable if it was stable > and had decent uplink speeds. Other than that it seems ok and I know that it > is not a fully developed product like the FSK was and even FSK was still > getting software fixes 10 years into its life. All though it was pretty > mature long before that and the fixes were minor in so far as what I need > from them. I keep thinking it is something in the way I have them configured > and I dont want to go to 10Mhz channel and give up the extra bandwidth per AP > if they can be made stable on 20Mhz > > Craig > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Skorup" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:44:33 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > Yeah, I've seen the estimated downlink RSSI fairly inaccurate. > > The only thing I can think of as to why the SMs with good uplink power > level have crappy uplink throughput is may they're too hot? I'm not > sure. That's really weird. You'd probably be better off getting Cambium > involved next week. > > All I can say is that it's still wifi based. The front end sucks. And if > you have other 802.11 frames flying, CSMA is going to get in the way. > That's why 10MHz channel width helps, there's a lot less beacons and > frames to be seen. Speaking of, have you ran the eDetect tool? > > On 6/6/2015 9:11 PM, Craig House wrote: >> Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In >> the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM >> power level that I just read from the SM >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> Quick question for you...... >> When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals.... -50 etc... >> I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? >> What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? >> >> Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also >> explain uplink issues.. >> >> :) >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Craig House" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >>> >>> AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests >>> as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target >>> recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI >>> the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite >>> them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too >>> strong and causing interference. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "George Skorup" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >>> >>> What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at >>> -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per >>> polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse >>> with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at >>> -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough >>> to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no >>> guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like >>> the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's >>> max Tx power so that no guard band is required. >>> >>> On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: >>>> We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those >>>> towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are >>>> configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended >>>> up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back >>>> designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have >>>> tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer >>>> stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of >>>> hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink >>>> quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I >>>> went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the >>>> wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause >>>> of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not >>>> have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 >>>> signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the >>>> ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have >>>> customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im >>>> scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS >>>> on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS >>>> on work all on the same channel? >>>> I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are >>>> adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying >>>> old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? >>>> >>>> Craig >>>
