For the TCP problem, we need more isolation testing to eliminate external path infrastructure, and we’ll work to replicate the problem here on our side with the same iperf commands when we receive them from you off list. This is not a known bug with any software version.
Cheers! Chris Trout Mimosa Networks On 7/17/15, 4:50 PM, "Af on behalf of [email protected]" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Send Af mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Af digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Cambium 13.4 (Matt Hopkins) > 2. Re: UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? (TJ Trout) > 3. Re: Cambium 13.4 (George Skorup) > 4. Re: Cambium 13.4 (George Skorup) > 5. Re: UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? (Rory Conaway) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:59:22 -0700 >From: Matt Hopkins <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 13.4 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > >I just wanted to throw out a heads-up for a Friday afternoon. What is >happening is that some of the SMs are displayed as "registering" in the >AP even after they are registered. You could click on the SM in the >table and it would take you to the SM like normal still. This happened >on a 2.4 450 and multiple 5GHz 450 APs. The signal doesn't seem to >matter as some of the SMs had signals as good as -67 with 29 SNR. >Traffic would not pass over the SM and if they had an additional VC for >voice it wouldn't ever establish. I also saw that overall signal levels >of SMs were 5 db (give or take) worse on 13.4. Additionally it seems >that Lite APs (-APL) are not letting me roll back to 13.2.1, or any >other version for that matter. I am glad I only upgraded a handful of >APs because I'm excited for the new CoA feature. >-- > >Matt Hopkins > >Network Administrator > >503.687.1030 > >[email protected] > ><http://onlinenw.com> > >onlinenw.com <http://onlinenw.com> > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150717/75d62ba6/attachment-0001.html> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:19:41 -0700 >From: TJ Trout <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? >Message-ID: > <CAP5r2ctVUmFMCNKzK-VTca=wu-906wnwowbsb-htwlwbrtm...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >yes but didn't make any progress >On Jul 17, 2015 3:56 PM, "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Did you contact their tech support? >> >> >> >> Rory >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *TJ Trout >> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 3:40 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? >> >> >> >> What is even more strange, is I seem to have exactly a 3mbps per tcp >> connection limit, when doing btest, I can get 3mbps @ 1 connection, 30 @ >> 10, 60 @ 20, 120 @ 40, etc... Anyone ever seen this? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:32 PM, TJ Trout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The radios are set 75/25, one direction I can do ~450udp and ~40tcp, the >> other direction I can do ~120 udp and ~100 tcp, what gives? For 3 weeks >> they were always the same TCP/UDP it's almost like the firmware damaged the >> radio! >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:23 PM, TJ Trout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have a set of Mimosa radios that when installed 3 weeks ago reported >> 500mbps mac rate and that was confirmed with the radios internal speed test >> as well as btest between two CCR's in both TCP and UDP, everything was >> great until I upgraded to beta software and I started seeing a problem >> where the radios Phy/Mac/Speed test are all the same as prior but when >> doing btest between two CCR's I can get 500 udp but only about 5-40 tcp! >> >> >> >> I promptly downgraded software and I'm still seeing the same problem. >> >> >> >> Any ideas? >> >> >> >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150717/459cd7c4/attachment-0001.html> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:33:27 -0500 >From: George Skorup <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 13.4 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > >I've updated a couple 5GHz 450 sectors so far and haven't seen this. >They all have less than 20 SMs though. Do yours have a lot of SMs? Are >you also sure it's not a browser cache issue? > >Yes, the Lites are a special build, 13.2.1.3 which Cambium hasn't made >available so I've also been hesitant to update any of them. > >On 7/17/2015 5:59 PM, Matt Hopkins wrote: >> I just wanted to throw out a heads-up for a Friday afternoon. What is >> happening is that some of the SMs are displayed as "registering" in >> the AP even after they are registered. You could click on the SM in >> the table and it would take you to the SM like normal still. This >> happened on a 2.4 450 and multiple 5GHz 450 APs. The signal doesn't >> seem to matter as some of the SMs had signals as good as -67 with 29 >> SNR. Traffic would not pass over the SM and if they had an additional >> VC for voice it wouldn't ever establish. I also saw that overall >> signal levels of SMs were 5 db (give or take) worse on 13.4. >> Additionally it seems that Lite APs (-APL) are not letting me roll >> back to 13.2.1, or any other version for that matter. I am glad I only >> upgraded a handful of APs because I'm excited for the new CoA feature. >> -- >> >> Matt Hopkins >> >> Network Administrator >> >> 503.687.1030 >> >> [email protected] >> >> <http://onlinenw.com> >> >> onlinenw.com <http://onlinenw.com> >> > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150717/712a9a57/attachment-0001.html> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:34:29 -0500 >From: George Skorup <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 13.4 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > >Oh, forgot to mention, I didn't see any change in power levels either. > >On 7/17/2015 6:33 PM, George Skorup wrote: >> I've updated a couple 5GHz 450 sectors so far and haven't seen this. >> They all have less than 20 SMs though. Do yours have a lot of SMs? Are >> you also sure it's not a browser cache issue? >> >> Yes, the Lites are a special build, 13.2.1.3 which Cambium hasn't made >> available so I've also been hesitant to update any of them. >> >> On 7/17/2015 5:59 PM, Matt Hopkins wrote: >>> I just wanted to throw out a heads-up for a Friday afternoon. What is >>> happening is that some of the SMs are displayed as "registering" in >>> the AP even after they are registered. You could click on the SM in >>> the table and it would take you to the SM like normal still. This >>> happened on a 2.4 450 and multiple 5GHz 450 APs. The signal doesn't >>> seem to matter as some of the SMs had signals as good as -67 with 29 >>> SNR. Traffic would not pass over the SM and if they had an additional >>> VC for voice it wouldn't ever establish. I also saw that overall >>> signal levels of SMs were 5 db (give or take) worse on 13.4. >>> Additionally it seems that Lite APs (-APL) are not letting me roll >>> back to 13.2.1, or any other version for that matter. I am glad I >>> only upgraded a handful of APs because I'm excited for the new CoA >>> feature. >>> -- >>> >>> Matt Hopkins >>> >>> Network Administrator >>> >>> 503.687.1030 >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> <http://onlinenw.com> >>> >>> onlinenw.com <http://onlinenw.com> >>> >> > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150717/a53fa230/attachment-0001.html> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:50:06 +0000 >From: Rory Conaway <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >We ran into a similar problem on a unit that had been running for a couple >months. Make a couple changes and whammo, similar problem. Rebooted, problem >went away and I haven?t seen it since. > >Rory > >From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of TJ Trout >Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:20 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? > > >yes but didn't make any progress >On Jul 17, 2015 3:56 PM, "Rory Conaway" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >Did you contact their tech support? > >Rory > >From: Af [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf >Of TJ Trout >Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 3:40 PM >To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UDP throughput is fine, TCP is bad? > >What is even more strange, is I seem to have exactly a 3mbps per tcp >connection limit, when doing btest, I can get 3mbps @ 1 connection, 30 @ 10, >60 @ 20, 120 @ 40, etc... Anyone ever seen this? > > > >On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:32 PM, TJ Trout ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >The radios are set 75/25, one direction I can do ~450udp and ~40tcp, the other >direction I can do ~120 udp and ~100 tcp, what gives? For 3 weeks they were >always the same TCP/UDP it's almost like the firmware damaged the radio! > >On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:23 PM, TJ Trout ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >I have a set of Mimosa radios that when installed 3 weeks ago reported 500mbps >mac rate and that was confirmed with the radios internal speed test as well as >btest between two CCR's in both TCP and UDP, everything was great until I >upgraded to beta software and I started seeing a problem where the radios >Phy/Mac/Speed test are all the same as prior but when doing btest between two >CCR's I can get 500 udp but only about 5-40 tcp! > >I promptly downgraded software and I'm still seeing the same problem. > >Any ideas? > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://afmug.com/pipermail/af/attachments/20150717/ca86f6e4/attachment.html> > >------------------------------ > >Subject: Digest Footer > >_______________________________________________ >Af mailing list >[email protected] >http://afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af > > >------------------------------ > >End of Af Digest, Vol 11, Issue 418 >***********************************
