Thanks for the response! This level is a bit beyond where I normally work. Followup comments in line:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Tom Tsou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2014 3:26 PM, "Kurtis Heimerl" <[email protected]> wrote: > > With the RAD1, the system is beaconing correctly. However, phones are > unable to camp. I logged a phone trying to camp on both the RAD1 and a B100 > to compare the output and see if anything jumps out. The osmoBTS/osmo-nitb > logs are seemingly identical, but the transceiver outputs are different. > > By beaconing correctly, you mean the handset recognize the network? > Yep. When doing a scan it correctly identifies the new network. > Based on these logs, you're not receiving RACH bursts. > What makes you say that? I don't see RACHs in either log, but the phone camps in the 52M trace so it must have received a RACH. I do see attempts to decode a RACH in the RAD1 trace though... > Both of the transceiver outputs are attached. The only big difference I > see is in the "underflows" on the RAD1, which in my experience is a > deal-breaker; that's not usually an easy fix. > > This is unrelated to osmo-bts. The effect on performance will depend on > the frequency of occurrence. > My thought was that osmo-bts may not be producing enough packets (or something) causing it to underflow. Am I off base there? > -TT >
