Title: Message
You
mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any
chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic?
Given
how different adaptive modulation methods are "optimized" differently for
different environments/situations/noise sources-- all I
Title: Message
Charles,
Thanks for the links.
PS. I understand yourpoints.(You can't
give it all away :-).
Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless
Broadband
- Original Message -
From:
Charles Wu
To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Monday, June 26,
Title: Message
Charles,
We have oftenfound that to get adequate UDP
performance withoutexcessive packetloss, we need to turn off Adaptive
modulationon 802.11 radios (and hard set it).
Specifically, we have seen it with
Alvarion.
You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive
modulation
Charles, I just wanted to make sure you disable connection tracking.
It is not required for a bridge or backhaul situation and you'll see a
few per cent better throughput.
Also, our routed performance exceeds the bridged throughput, so the
best is using routed without connection tracking.
The V3 code on the WAR boards is compatible 802.11a but I would not
call it vanilla. This driver is tweaked for performance and we can
get about 150 mbps total throughput on the 533 MHz boards. With
compression and Turbo mode and using a radio repeater (input radio and
output radio) we have
Title: Message
Dear
Travis,
We
have "end user pricing" and "reseller/WISP" pricing and the two are different;
that keeps margin in there for resellers to sell the product on, which is why
our price list isn't on the website: just a matter of history, 60-70% of our
customers are
Title: Message
Hi
Travis,
ARQ
(which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although
changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access)
A
better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP)
can be shown via adaptive modulation
The
MADWiFi
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Charles Wu wrote:
Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the
documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe
that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the
protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure
Charles,
Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written
things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it.
Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first
companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year
Title: Message
Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing,
83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot
of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU
Hi John,
Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I
have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is
the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to
expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive
Charles,
The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates
the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol.
The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to
sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with
Nstreme box. :)
Travis
Microserv
Title: Message
Hi
Charles,
Well I
can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course
can.
Sure
we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses
apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful
architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards
Title: Message
Stephen,
Could you share retail pricing on your products? I don't see any
pricing listed on your website. I'm sure many people (including myself)
could be interested in getting more information, etc. but it's nice to
see if the product is even close to the price range we are
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
While it may sound great to have a "double
standard law," it isn't realistic.
I disagree for several reasons.
Recent FCC trends have showed that there should NOT
be a double standard between Cable and Telcos.
The
Earl Comstock stated it best at ISPCON last year: The reason we are in
the mess we call telecom today is that 300 companies with an army of
lawyers and lobbyists spent $100's of millions to tell Congress the
FCC to regulate them and not us.
Regulation generally does NOT work that way. You
I am and always have been a StarOS fan. They came out on top when we where
initially tested various products 2 years ago and have been great since
however we had to revisited RouterOS recently when we noticed that the
majority of our traffic was 100 - 200 byte packets which was killing our WAR
Title: Message
Hi
Stephen,
Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what
is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely
misleading
For
example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in
routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted
Title: Message
Charles,
Excellent points.
However to expand on that. Mikrotik added software
feature is looked at as added value but in some cases looked at as a negative
feature. For example, sometimes all I want is an easy to install bridge. I take
a Trango out of the box, and bam its
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Hi there,
Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point.
We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known
I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth.
Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet.
Figuring it correctly:
just my 1.0871p worth
:-)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Nice one Jeff...
Absolutely right -
and our over-priced currency deserves some stick, not us (the people)
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 June 2006
I only mentioned Mikrotik as its abilty to pass large packets has been
tested.
I believe we couldn't do that with StarOS as a limitation of Wifi clients
(although not positive, as I did not investigate WDS options on StarOS which
allows the large packets and full passing bridge features.) With
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no
harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market
pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access. If we block, and
they want, they
While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the
convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its
flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature
If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself
genre) -- you
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
While it may sound great to have a "double standard
law," it isn't realistic. Recent FCC ruling trends tell us
that.
For years, telephone companies have been heavily
regulated while cable companies have not.
DSL
Patrick,
I have to agree with you that is some exciting data.
However, I don't want the world to forget one of the core reasons to chose
Alvarion.
And it has nothing to do with new features. The abilty to have higher
capacity links (14-24 mbps real), using OFDM, and being able to pull off the
Paul,
Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests
in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were
not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from
Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion
So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0
delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case.
Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput:
Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS
64
Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme
solution.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about
30 matches
Mail list logo
