Thanks Aaron. So this is ultimately an RF issue and not CPU? The 450i APs will have the same problem?
Thanks/Billy Burns -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Schneider Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 frame utilization and performance issues The scheduler operates on-demand in the downlink, applying the priority rules covered many times before, and by request in the uplink - SMs need to request to the AP to be scheduled, and the AP schedules uplink based on the same priority rules. An external traffic shaping device operating on the transport layers should cause the end points to self-throttle the link such that it is only offering the stream desired by the shaper. This doesn't work with UDP, but assuming it is TCP, then you shouldn't have this scenario where we are sending through 10Mbps of a data stream just to have a shaper drop that to 2Mbps. Looking at Eric's graphs, it would be interesting to also see which SMs are using the link. You could enable the throughput monitoring on the GUI to see if your 1x-2x users are using a lot of bandwidth, and if so, that is the issue dragging down the sector. -Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 10:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 frame utilization and performance issues Over the past week I keep thinking about how the BRAS would interact with the Canopy scheduler. I assume the BRAS limits people by dropping packets or altering TCP window sizes, or some other layer3 method. Since it has no knowledge of the layer1 scheduling happening on the Canopy AP, I wonder if it's possible to have a scenario where Canopy is allocating 10mbps worth of air time (and counting that air time as utilized) while the BRAS is configured to only give that user 2mbps. I wonder if bypassing the BRAS and configuring the sustained speed in each SM would make a difference in your problem. On 11/6/2015 4:20 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote: > Your suggestion is interesting. Currently, all SM's are left at > default (wide open). We rate-limit at the core with our BRAS. I didn't > consider this being a limiting factor during times of contention. > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >> Or....reduce the sustained data rate configured on the low modulation >> subscribers. >> I believe the Canopy scheduler distributes capacity proportional to >> the configured sustained rate when there's contention. So if you >> configure the weaker connection for less speed, he should be allocated less >> air time. >> >> Sorry for so many separate posts. >> >> On 11/6/2015 2:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: >> >> Ripping and replacing a FSK with a 450 is generally not going to go >> well unless you are absolutely certain your customers are going to >> modulate at the highest rate. >> >> A better scenario if you can manage it is to hang the 450 alongside >> the FSK and then only move the heavy customers with strong signals. >> >> On Nov 6, 2015 12:21 PM, "Eric Muehleisen" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Tyson, >>> 1. We are using Cambium stock 65* dualslant antennas. >>> 2. Mix of routers. We have a BYOR (bring your own router) policy. >>> 3. All AP's are sync'd with either CMM4 or CTM2. >>> >>> Adam, >>> We will certainly focus more attention on those SM's that have poor >>> modulation. It wouldn't surprise me if the most active SM's are the >>> ones stuck at 1x or 2x. >>> >>> George, >>> We have not considered downgrading. Our entire network has been >>> upgraded to 13.4. That over 500 SM's at this point. I'm a little >>> nervous about downgrading. >>> >>> The reality here is that upgrading a FSK sector to 450 gets us only >>> a little over double the capacity. FSK aggregates around 13mb/s and >>> around 27mb/s aggregate for the 450. This is quite disappointing. It >>> appears that we must now be very selective over what SM's can >>> register. A nearly impossible task in our situation. Use caution if >>> you plan on ripping and replacing your old FSK. You will not yield >>> the kind of throughput you'd expect. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Tyson Burris @ Internet >>> Communications Inc <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Eric, >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this up. We recently started deploying about >>>> 30 450 AP's. Our testing in the field and with customers is >>>> producing the same EXACT problem you just reported. >>>> >>>> More importantly, we see this problem on AP's with low SM's to high >>>> SM ranges (5-45). Same firmware. >>>> >>>> Let's compare some notes: >>>> >>>> 1. What antennas are you using? >>>> 2. What routers / OS are you using? >>>> 3. What sync source are you using? >>>> >>>> We see high frame uses even on the AP's with low SM's and great >>>> modulation rates. >>>> I can understand if a large number of SM's have low modulation it >>>> will eat up frames, but the outcome is the same on low and high SM counts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tyson Burris, President >>>> Internet Communications Inc. >>>> 739 Commerce Dr. >>>> Franklin, IN 46131 >>>> >>>> 317-738-0320 Daytime # >>>> 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # >>>> Online: www.surfici.net >>>> >>>> >>>> What can ICI do for you? >>>> >>>> Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh >>>> Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. >>>> >>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the addressee >>>> shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected >>>> from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this >>>> transmission or its contents by unauthorized organizations or >>>> individuals is strictly prohibited. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen >>>> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 12:51 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [AFMUG] 450 frame utilization and performance issues >>>> >>>> We have a few 450 AP's with 30-40 subscribers and have been getting >>>> several slow speed complaints lately. I just chaulked it up to >>>> issues with the SM since the AP rarely got over 20mb/s downlink. We >>>> upgraded to 13.4 recently so we could watch our frame utilization. >>>> We started graphing it over night and as you can see, we are >>>> hitting 100% for sustained periods of time. During that time the AP >>>> is only doing approx. 23mb/s. This particular AP has 34 registered >>>> SM and the majority show 6x and 4x with 4 or 5 SM's at 2x and 1x. >>>> The performance is a major disappointment. Anyone else have similar >>>> experiences? >>>> >>>> AP configuration: 20mhz channels, 2.5ms frame, 10 miles, 75% >>>> downlink, >>>> 3 contention slots. >>>> >>>> Attached is a screenshot of the utilization and sector throughput >>>> calculator from the Capacity Planner R13. >>>> >> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
