A lot of the our backlog cleared out just before year end. Waiting mostly for antennas to fill the rest.
Jeff Broadwick ConVergence Technologies, Inc. 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell [email protected] > On Jan 5, 2016, at 8:03 PM, Gino Villarini <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>>>> 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. >
