That's pretty good, I was expecting an average of more like 18-20ms. The occasional spike to 250 for 1 or 2 seconds at a time is not unexpected at 900MHz with noise and retransmits.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > SM is bridged and has an RFC1918 IP. Test would have to be run on-net. > > I just tried a few ping tests from the (Cisco) tower router. 100 pings > typically comes back around 4/10/35 for min/avg/max. I ran 1000 pings > though and got 4/11/48, ran another 1000 and got 4/12/248. Zero packet > loss, but apparently noise can cause an occasional latency spike, probably > due to upstream. > > > *From:* Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:15 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz 450i update with better results :-) > > Any chance of running 'mtr' against the CPE IP of house #2 and leaving it > for a few hours? I'm curious what the min/max/average latency looks like. > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able to >> get better results. I'll put the details in a second post, but I wanted to >> update the grim picture I painted the other day. >> >> As initially set up, I was only getting 1X MIMO-A, even on a 5 MHz >> channel and after trying a bunch of frequencies, and the SMs would not >> reliably stay registered. >> >> After tweaking the sync parameters and channel, I was able to get one sub >> to 4X MIMO-B and the other to 2X MIMO-B, and increase the channel width to >> 7 MHz. They have stayed registered now for 18 hours and while the speed >> varies a bit they hold 4X and 2X. Here are linktest results I just ran: >> >> subscriber #1 >> 2 miles with a few bare trees and apparently some multipath issues >> 2X MIMO-B >> 8.6M down, 4.4M up, 13.0M aggregate >> >> subscriber #2 >> 8 miles with 2 lines of trees and a house in the path >> 4X MIMO-B >> 14.6M down, 4.6M up, 19.3M aggregate >> >> The AP and subscriber #1 have bad interference across the band, >> interference is not as bad at subscriber #2. >> >> These numbers may not look great compared to 100M aggregate capacity, but >> they are around a 6 times improvement over what we had with FSK. I'm sure >> we would see better results at another site with less interference, in fact >> I have another tower where we can run 2X FSK but 4M aggregate just isn't >> enough capacity. >> >> >
