still waiting on my kit On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> wrote:
> Its pretty impressive... > On Jan 5, 2016 2:31 PM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We finally got our 900mhz 450i put up... so far, I'm impressed. >> We only have two clients on it at this point, but if the link tests are >> anything to go by, it's a bit better than the PMP100 it replaced... >> >> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive >> Actual Actual >> 18 95.00 Mbps 14.60 Mbps 109.61 Mbps, 7916 pps 68661 (6866 >> pps) 10501(1050 pps) >> >> >> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive >> Actual Actual >> 19 31.93 Mbps 6.50 Mbps 38.43 Mbps, 2767 pps 23034 (2303 >> pps) 4645(464 pps) >> >> >> I have it running on a 20mhz channel right now, just because I can (there >> isn't any other 900mhz in the area), the second connection is a little on >> the weak side because of some terrain issues, but it actually wasn't too >> much worse running on a 10mhz channel (about 30mbps aggregate, if I >> remember right). It's not the best time of year to be testing NLOS >> connections, but signal levels are pretty close to what they were with the >> PMP100, so I have a pretty good idea what to expect... I'm hoping that dual >> slant will cut through the leaves a bit better than single H-pol did, but >> even if signal levels are only as good as the PMP100 was in the summer, >> this is going to be very usable. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>
