That's probably because of RF problems. Radio or environment. Not the ETH port.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:49 AM, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know. I have had one M5 link that definitely performed better on > 40MHz over 30MHz, but that link has been upgraded to licensed now. I just > regurgitate the BS that they feed me on the forums. > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That doesn't make much sense since the wlan and eth ports are bridged. >> The cpu isn't involved unless you're routing/NATing the two interfaces. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, >>> that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor >>> would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work >>> better. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman >>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>> Suite 1337 >>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>> On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't know how epmp does it. >>>>> >>>>> For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a "fat" 20mhz channel in the atheros >>>>> chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning >>>>> radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the >>>>> lack >>>>> of gigabit port. >>>>> On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series >>>>> between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but >>>>> I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster >>>>> processor and on a software level they are very different. >>>>> >>>>> So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and >>>>> PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I >>>>> haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel >>>>> works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels >>>>> bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway >>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >>>>> >>>>> I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some >>>>> things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not >>>>> scale >>>>> with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels >>>>> rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, >>>>> lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to >>>>> be >>>>> the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. >>>>> Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity >>>>> and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older >>>>> 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz >>>>> processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We >>>>> did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's >>>>> non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were >>>>> online. >>>>> >>>>> Rory >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig House >>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
