RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Will do. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: 15 November 2005 02:13 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul, Send me the coordinates of the link and pictures from antenna height at both ends looking down the path and I can give you a pretty good idea..ok, here is where a disclaimer goes :P Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:08 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Just as a rough guide, would it be likely that you could get half the rated throughput on the Orthogon units over 2k through very lite trees? The problem I have is that I haven't been able to complete a site survey but have been told that they had a link during last winter which dropped once leaves grew. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Petermann Sent: 14 November 2005 15:53 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 For the profile, I use RadioMobile and export the path to a text file. I then put the first 2 columns into the second tab on the spreadsheet. Works great. On Nov 13, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Dylan Oliver wrote: > Paul, > > I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the > Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to > attend a training session to get access to the partner site and > profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report > for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people > will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, > that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added > to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna > gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on > both sides. > > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul, Send me the coordinates of the link and pictures from antenna height at both ends looking down the path and I can give you a pretty good idea..ok, here is where a disclaimer goes :P Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 2:08 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Just as a rough guide, would it be likely that you could get half the rated throughput on the Orthogon units over 2k through very lite trees? The problem I have is that I haven't been able to complete a site survey but have been told that they had a link during last winter which dropped once leaves grew. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Petermann Sent: 14 November 2005 15:53 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 For the profile, I use RadioMobile and export the path to a text file. I then put the first 2 columns into the second tab on the spreadsheet. Works great. On Nov 13, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Dylan Oliver wrote: > Paul, > > I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the > Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to > attend a training session to get access to the partner site and > profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report > for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people > will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, > that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added > to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna > gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on > both sides. > > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Just as a rough guide, would it be likely that you could get half the rated throughput on the Orthogon units over 2k through very lite trees? The problem I have is that I haven't been able to complete a site survey but have been told that they had a link during last winter which dropped once leaves grew. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Petermann Sent: 14 November 2005 15:53 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 For the profile, I use RadioMobile and export the path to a text file. I then put the first 2 columns into the second tab on the spreadsheet. Works great. On Nov 13, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Dylan Oliver wrote: > Paul, > > I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the > Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to > attend a training session to get access to the partner site and > profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report > for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people > will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, > that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added > to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna > gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on > both sides. > > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
For the profile, I use RadioMobile and export the path to a text file. I then put the first 2 columns into the second tab on the spreadsheet. Works great. On Nov 13, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Dylan Oliver wrote: Paul, I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to attend a training session to get access to the partner site and profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on both sides. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Do the Orthogon units compress the data like all Atheros based solutions or are these figures regardless of the type of traffic? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.Villarini Sent: 14 November 2005 00:47 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 They're in a semi nlos situation, plus lots of noise we are pulling 200 mbps Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Hey Gino, Are you using the Spectra's in a NLOS environment? If so, what sort of obstructions are there and what kind of throughput can you get? Looking to get a pair for a link but a bit expensive if they can't deliver. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.Villarini Sent: 11 October 2005 02:38 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 They only thing I haven't opened yet is my set of Orthogon Spectras ... too expensive .. Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Ahhh you've never cracked one open to see what's inside? Ask Gino, you have to take everything apart and see what makes it tick. :) George Matt Liotta wrote: > That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax > jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as > opposed to N. > > -Matt > > G.Villarini wrote: > >> That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx >> jacks on >> the pcb ... >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 09/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
They're in a semi nlos situation, plus lots of noise we are pulling 200 mbps Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Hey Gino, Are you using the Spectra's in a NLOS environment? If so, what sort of obstructions are there and what kind of throughput can you get? Looking to get a pair for a link but a bit expensive if they can't deliver. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.Villarini Sent: 11 October 2005 02:38 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 They only thing I haven't opened yet is my set of Orthogon Spectras ... too expensive .. Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Ahhh you've never cracked one open to see what's inside? Ask Gino, you have to take everything apart and see what makes it tick. :) George Matt Liotta wrote: > That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax > jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as > opposed to N. > > -Matt > > G.Villarini wrote: > >> That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx >> jacks on >> the pcb ... >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 09/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
I have installed 3 Spectra Links so far. NLOS performance will be best in municipal environments with plenty of buildings to bounce off of. I did try to make a 6 mile NLOS link with trees in the path before I recommended the construction of a tower. I wanted to see the potential. If the path obstructions are in the middle of the path there is a much higher probability of success, however, if the obstructions are near the ends of the link the chances of success are much less. This particular path is in a rural area without reflective surfaces. NLOS links will drop bandwidth potential rapidly. All calculations I have done so far point to a 20 mile limit for 200+ Mbps throughput. The newest firmware released a few weeks ago improved bandwidth on one of these links 50 Mbps. I was very impressed with that, good job Orthogon. That link is running 6 miles with LOS and 2’ Dual Pol dishes. It is running about 175 Mbps currently. We will be switching to 3’ dishes in a few weeks to peak out the performance capabilities of the link. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:46 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 What about NLOS (trees and buildings) @ 3km with a max EIRP of 33db (as that’s what we are stuck with in the UK L) or 28km with good LOS/Fresnel clearance with max EIRP of 33db? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: 13 November 2005 21:04 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul, I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to attend a training session to get access to the partner site and profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on both sides. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
What about NLOS (trees and buildings) @ 3km with a max EIRP of 33db (as that’s what we are stuck with in the UK L) or 28km with good LOS/Fresnel clearance with max EIRP of 33db? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: 13 November 2005 21:04 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul, I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to attend a training session to get access to the partner site and profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on both sides. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul, I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to attend a training session to get access to the partner site and profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on both sides. Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Hey Gino, Are you using the Spectra's in a NLOS environment? If so, what sort of obstructions are there and what kind of throughput can you get? Looking to get a pair for a link but a bit expensive if they can't deliver. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G.Villarini Sent: 11 October 2005 02:38 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 They only thing I haven't opened yet is my set of Orthogon Spectras ... too expensive .. Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Ahhh you've never cracked one open to see what's inside? Ask Gino, you have to take everything apart and see what makes it tick. :) George Matt Liotta wrote: > That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax > jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as > opposed to N. > > -Matt > > G.Villarini wrote: > >> That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx >> jacks on >> the pcb ... >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 09/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with good -65 signal and yes it would seem that the earlier differences in upload/download speeds was CPU related as both up and down look to be very close. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danlist Sent: 20 October 2005 13:29 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul, Was this turbo mode or standard? Thanks Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Paul Hendry > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:11 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > UPDATE > > Just tested with 2 P4's at each end of a StarVX link running on the 2 port > WAR (266Mhz CPU). Bi-direction test using TCP, random data (uncompressible) > shows 35-36mbps in both directions (aggregate throughput of 70-72mbps). > These figures do not take into account TCP acknowledgements so the real > throughput is a little higher. The StarVX's report throughput of around > 37-39mbps in both rx and tx. > > Many thanks, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Hendry > Sent: 20 October 2005 09:32 > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > The first tests I did where with a routed topology through 2 StarVX routers > but these most recent tests is with all interfaces bridged and the StarVX > client as a wireless client bridge which I believe is based on WDS. > > If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I > wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and > 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random > (uncompressible) tcp based data. > > The tests are based on default packet sizes however, we run M3P (ip packing) > between the Mikrotiks and when testing with small packets (50-100byte) I see > the same results. The only problem with M3P is that it adds 15ms of delay in > each direction under low loads. This means you see pings with a round trip > time of +30ms. This does however improve when more and more traffic is > passed over the link as M3P either waits for 1500bytes of traffic or 15ms to > expire (which ever comes first). > > The difference in upload and download speed I have so far put down to one > system being a 2.4GHz CPU and the other being a 533MHz CPU. Hopefully I can > test with 2 P4's later today. > > Cheers, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David E. Smith > Sent: 20 October 2005 04:34 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > Paul Hendry wrote: > > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. > > Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) > > My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing > the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, > depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating > between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with > traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. > > Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are > you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be > able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. > Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before > and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) > > Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with > those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real > worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away > with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul Hendry wrote: If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random (uncompressible) tcp based data. I just meant similar as in "asymmetrical," actually, not similar as in similar throughput. I was just using RB532s, and I'm pretty sure the tests are CPU-bound at this point. (Specifically, it apparently takes a lot of CPU to generate all those random packets...) I'm hoping to scrounge up another computer from somewhere, so I can run something like qcheck or nuttcp on either end of the link. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul, Was this turbo mode or standard? Thanks Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Paul Hendry > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:11 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > UPDATE > > Just tested with 2 P4's at each end of a StarVX link running on the 2 port > WAR (266Mhz CPU). Bi-direction test using TCP, random data (uncompressible) > shows 35-36mbps in both directions (aggregate throughput of 70-72mbps). > These figures do not take into account TCP acknowledgements so the real > throughput is a little higher. The StarVX's report throughput of around > 37-39mbps in both rx and tx. > > Many thanks, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Hendry > Sent: 20 October 2005 09:32 > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > The first tests I did where with a routed topology through 2 StarVX routers > but these most recent tests is with all interfaces bridged and the StarVX > client as a wireless client bridge which I believe is based on WDS. > > If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I > wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and > 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random > (uncompressible) tcp based data. > > The tests are based on default packet sizes however, we run M3P (ip packing) > between the Mikrotiks and when testing with small packets (50-100byte) I see > the same results. The only problem with M3P is that it adds 15ms of delay in > each direction under low loads. This means you see pings with a round trip > time of +30ms. This does however improve when more and more traffic is > passed over the link as M3P either waits for 1500bytes of traffic or 15ms to > expire (which ever comes first). > > The difference in upload and download speed I have so far put down to one > system being a 2.4GHz CPU and the other being a 533MHz CPU. Hopefully I can > test with 2 P4's later today. > > Cheers, > > P. > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David E. Smith > Sent: 20 October 2005 04:34 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > Paul Hendry wrote: > > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. > > Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) > > My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing > the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, > depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating > between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with > traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. > > Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are > you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be > able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. > Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before > and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) > > Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with > those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real > worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away > with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Re
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
So you are thinking the asymmetry was a processing problem? Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: "Paul Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:10:44 +0100 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > UPDATE > > Just tested with 2 P4's at each end of a StarVX link running on the 2 port > WAR (266Mhz CPU). Bi-direction test using TCP, random data (uncompressible) > shows 35-36mbps in both directions (aggregate throughput of 70-72mbps). > These figures do not take into account TCP acknowledgements so the real > throughput is a little higher. The StarVX's report throughput of around > 37-39mbps in both rx and tx. > > Many thanks, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Hendry > Sent: 20 October 2005 09:32 > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > The first tests I did where with a routed topology through 2 StarVX routers > but these most recent tests is with all interfaces bridged and the StarVX > client as a wireless client bridge which I believe is based on WDS. > > If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I > wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and > 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random > (uncompressible) tcp based data. > > The tests are based on default packet sizes however, we run M3P (ip packing) > between the Mikrotiks and when testing with small packets (50-100byte) I see > the same results. The only problem with M3P is that it adds 15ms of delay in > each direction under low loads. This means you see pings with a round trip > time of +30ms. This does however improve when more and more traffic is > passed over the link as M3P either waits for 1500bytes of traffic or 15ms to > expire (which ever comes first). > > The difference in upload and download speed I have so far put down to one > system being a 2.4GHz CPU and the other being a 533MHz CPU. Hopefully I can > test with 2 P4's later today. > > Cheers, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David E. Smith > Sent: 20 October 2005 04:34 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > Paul Hendry wrote: > > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. > > Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) > > My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing > the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, > depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating > between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with > traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. > > Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are > you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be > able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. > Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before > and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) > > Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with > those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real > worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away > with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://li
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Also just noticed that the TCP test results as well as not taking into account the TCP acknowledgements it also doesn't include the TCP header and IP header. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 20 October 2005 13:11 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 UPDATE Just tested with 2 P4's at each end of a StarVX link running on the 2 port WAR (266Mhz CPU). Bi-direction test using TCP, random data (uncompressible) shows 35-36mbps in both directions (aggregate throughput of 70-72mbps). These figures do not take into account TCP acknowledgements so the real throughput is a little higher. The StarVX's report throughput of around 37-39mbps in both rx and tx. Many thanks, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 20 October 2005 09:32 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 The first tests I did where with a routed topology through 2 StarVX routers but these most recent tests is with all interfaces bridged and the StarVX client as a wireless client bridge which I believe is based on WDS. If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random (uncompressible) tcp based data. The tests are based on default packet sizes however, we run M3P (ip packing) between the Mikrotiks and when testing with small packets (50-100byte) I see the same results. The only problem with M3P is that it adds 15ms of delay in each direction under low loads. This means you see pings with a round trip time of +30ms. This does however improve when more and more traffic is passed over the link as M3P either waits for 1500bytes of traffic or 15ms to expire (which ever comes first). The difference in upload and download speed I have so far put down to one system being a 2.4GHz CPU and the other being a 533MHz CPU. Hopefully I can test with 2 P4's later today. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: 20 October 2005 04:34 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul Hendry wrote: > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
UPDATE Just tested with 2 P4's at each end of a StarVX link running on the 2 port WAR (266Mhz CPU). Bi-direction test using TCP, random data (uncompressible) shows 35-36mbps in both directions (aggregate throughput of 70-72mbps). These figures do not take into account TCP acknowledgements so the real throughput is a little higher. The StarVX's report throughput of around 37-39mbps in both rx and tx. Many thanks, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 20 October 2005 09:32 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 The first tests I did where with a routed topology through 2 StarVX routers but these most recent tests is with all interfaces bridged and the StarVX client as a wireless client bridge which I believe is based on WDS. If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random (uncompressible) tcp based data. The tests are based on default packet sizes however, we run M3P (ip packing) between the Mikrotiks and when testing with small packets (50-100byte) I see the same results. The only problem with M3P is that it adds 15ms of delay in each direction under low loads. This means you see pings with a round trip time of +30ms. This does however improve when more and more traffic is passed over the link as M3P either waits for 1500bytes of traffic or 15ms to expire (which ever comes first). The difference in upload and download speed I have so far put down to one system being a 2.4GHz CPU and the other being a 533MHz CPU. Hopefully I can test with 2 P4's later today. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: 20 October 2005 04:34 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul Hendry wrote: > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
The first tests I did where with a routed topology through 2 StarVX routers but these most recent tests is with all interfaces bridged and the StarVX client as a wireless client bridge which I believe is based on WDS. If your asymmetric performance with the RB532's is between 12 and 18mbps I wouldn't say your seeing similar performance as I am seeing 40mbps and 27.7mbps when transmitting and receiving at the same time using random (uncompressible) tcp based data. The tests are based on default packet sizes however, we run M3P (ip packing) between the Mikrotiks and when testing with small packets (50-100byte) I see the same results. The only problem with M3P is that it adds 15ms of delay in each direction under low loads. This means you see pings with a round trip time of +30ms. This does however improve when more and more traffic is passed over the link as M3P either waits for 1500bytes of traffic or 15ms to expire (which ever comes first). The difference in upload and download speed I have so far put down to one system being a 2.4GHz CPU and the other being a 533MHz CPU. Hopefully I can test with 2 P4's later today. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: 20 October 2005 04:34 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul Hendry wrote: > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul Hendry wrote: > Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. Hey, as long as you're doubling as my personal IT lab... :) My tests so far have just been traditional AP/client mode, and I'm seeing the same sort of asymmetrical performance you are. With a pair of RB532s, depending on the "random-data" and packet size settings, I'm floating between 12 and 18Mbps. Thing is, I always get better performance with traffic going client-to-AP than AP-to-client. Have you, or will you, test with WDS mode? If you've already done so, are you getting better or worse performance that way? (I may or may not be able to try that particular setup before I leave for vacation on Friday. Probably not, because I've not worked with RouterOS' wireless stuff before and I may not be able to figure out how to set it up. :) Also, are you using the default packet sizes or have you been playing with those too? At least in wired network testing I've done before, the real worst-case scenario involves using the smallest packets you can get away with (because of the extra overhead in packet creation). David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Managed to scavenge a P4 system together for testing purposes. Tested again using built-in bandwidth test tools as these seem to give a pretty accurate representation of uncompressible traffic when using random data (i.e. worse case scenario). Signal on both ends is -65 running frequency 5800 in turbo with a rate of 108. Testing now shows average of 40mbps in one direction and 27.7 in other. I will try and build another P4 system as the 2nd Mikrotik in this setup is an old VIA mini-itx board running a 533MHz CPU :( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 13 October 2005 21:08 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Just a little update. We thought we'd see what we could get through a couple of these 2 port WAR boards in ideal conditions (rssi -25) with turbo enabled. Testing was between 2 Mikrotik boxes with a StarVX link linking them. Test was using built-in Mikrotik bandwidth-test in both directions using random data and tcp. After running the test for 30 mins we have a tx average of 27Mbps and rx average of 30.1Mbps. CPU's on both Mikrotik boxes where running at 100% throughout the entire test so I really need to build some P4's to test with to truly see what these can do. Not sure how this compares with any testing others have done on other systems but thought I should post the results. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 11 October 2005 16:09 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Indeed. And finding a clear 5 or 10Mhz is a lot easier than finding a clear 20Mhz. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: 11 October 2005 15:56 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul Hendry wrote: as we have no intention > of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. This to me is the beauty of the WAR StarVX platform. The links I have up now are 10MHz. With limited spectrum available to us, it's the frugal thing to do. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/131 - Release Date: 12/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Just a little update. We thought we'd see what we could get through a couple of these 2 port WAR boards in ideal conditions (rssi -25) with turbo enabled. Testing was between 2 Mikrotik boxes with a StarVX link linking them. Test was using built-in Mikrotik bandwidth-test in both directions using random data and tcp. After running the test for 30 mins we have a tx average of 27Mbps and rx average of 30.1Mbps. CPU's on both Mikrotik boxes where running at 100% throughout the entire test so I really need to build some P4's to test with to truly see what these can do. Not sure how this compares with any testing others have done on other systems but thought I should post the results. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: 11 October 2005 16:09 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Indeed. And finding a clear 5 or 10Mhz is a lot easier than finding a clear 20Mhz. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: 11 October 2005 15:56 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul Hendry wrote: as we have no intention > of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. This to me is the beauty of the WAR StarVX platform. The links I have up now are 10MHz. With limited spectrum available to us, it's the frugal thing to do. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Indeed. And finding a clear 5 or 10Mhz is a lot easier than finding a clear 20Mhz. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: 11 October 2005 15:56 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Paul Hendry wrote: as we have no intention > of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. This to me is the beauty of the WAR StarVX platform. The links I have up now are 10MHz. With limited spectrum available to us, it's the frugal thing to do. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul Hendry wrote: as we have no intention of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. This to me is the beauty of the WAR StarVX platform. The links I have up now are 10MHz. With limited spectrum available to us, it's the frugal thing to do. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Lonnie, I hate to be a bad guy here but can you guys fix some of the basic routing problems first before moving on to "bigger and better" things??? We have e-mailed support several times with issues and, while you guys make an initial response, we seem to get "forgotton" afterward and a solution is never realised. We really like your product but the routing issues that we are having is making us look at Mikrotik Sorry Gang... -B- LI-Sky, Inc 631-580-5944 -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada 631-467-1697 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: The SSH interface was started for StarVX but that bit of code added MORE than the size of the current image, which is just pushing 1.5 MB. We will be building a web interface as an option to the GUI. Our goal is to stay under 2 MB and be able to run on some real tiny systems. Lonnie On 10/10/05, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: George wrote: Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX. Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig. http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG Gah. Is that... a Windows GUI? Just what I need, another interface to learn. Someone pester Lonnie and tell him to make StarVX look like StarOS so I can just slap stuff in and go. :D David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Paul, keep us posted, thi is really good input Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:06 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Tom, You say that "connection tracking" is on. I advised you to turn this of (i.e untick all the boxes in the connection tracking sub menu). To give an example, we have a 28km link with WRAP's/CM9's/5.8GHz at each end. Signal sits at around -71 (qual 24) and we hard set the rate on both end to 36. With connection tracking completely turned of we get around 20mbps using the StarOS built-in speed test. Have just received some of the 2 port WAR boards with the slower CPU and have spent the past day testing them. So far I am able to get about the same throughput as a WRAP when setting the channel bandwidth to 5Mhz (cloaking x4) and double that when set to 10Mhz (cloaking x2). Haven't really tested them at normal 20Mhz or 40Mhz (turbo) as we have no intention of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. I am in the process of setting up a test environment with Mikrotik routers at each end of a StarVX link so I can run the various types of bandwidth tests available in RouterOS. The link has been set with the same signal levels as our 28km link so as to emulate it as much as we can without having to set-up another 28km link and so far I have seen 40mbps udp tests from Mikrotik to Mikrotik with 10Mhz bandwidth which is pretty amazing. I think we could see even more but the 2 Mikrotik boxes are running with CPU at 100% :( Once we've built some new test boxes I'll post my results. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: 10 October 2005 23:59 To: Lonnie Nunweiler; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Oops... I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 mile -48. However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different. Any reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db. So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 db loss, unless I don't have the distance right. I do have set at 1 mile in driver. However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps. I confirmed that CPU usage hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on. So appears to be CPU limited. Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails (ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5" Ufl to N pigtails? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling. Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to be under limits throughput severely. Lonnie On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 > yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The > radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. > All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > mbps, > and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to > SU) > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real > throughput > (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through > in > longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), > retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can > be > much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to > hog > up channels. > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or > the > WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing > speed,
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Tom, You say that "connection tracking" is on. I advised you to turn this of (i.e untick all the boxes in the connection tracking sub menu). To give an example, we have a 28km link with WRAP's/CM9's/5.8GHz at each end. Signal sits at around -71 (qual 24) and we hard set the rate on both end to 36. With connection tracking completely turned of we get around 20mbps using the StarOS built-in speed test. Have just received some of the 2 port WAR boards with the slower CPU and have spent the past day testing them. So far I am able to get about the same throughput as a WRAP when setting the channel bandwidth to 5Mhz (cloaking x4) and double that when set to 10Mhz (cloaking x2). Haven't really tested them at normal 20Mhz or 40Mhz (turbo) as we have no intention of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. I am in the process of setting up a test environment with Mikrotik routers at each end of a StarVX link so I can run the various types of bandwidth tests available in RouterOS. The link has been set with the same signal levels as our 28km link so as to emulate it as much as we can without having to set-up another 28km link and so far I have seen 40mbps udp tests from Mikrotik to Mikrotik with 10Mhz bandwidth which is pretty amazing. I think we could see even more but the 2 Mikrotik boxes are running with CPU at 100% :( Once we've built some new test boxes I'll post my results. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: 10 October 2005 23:59 To: Lonnie Nunweiler; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Oops... I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 mile -48. However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different. Any reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db. So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 db loss, unless I don't have the distance right. I do have set at 1 mile in driver. However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps. I confirmed that CPU usage hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on. So appears to be CPU limited. Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails (ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5" Ufl to N pigtails? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling. Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to be under limits throughput severely. Lonnie On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 > yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The > radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. > All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > mbps, > and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to > SU) > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real > throughput > (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through > in > longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), > retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can > be > much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to > hog > up channels. > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or > the > WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing > speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > For those interested > > My business decission question is: > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > 4) Trango h
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
The SSH interface was started for StarVX but that bit of code added MORE than the size of the current image, which is just pushing 1.5 MB. We will be building a web interface as an option to the GUI. Our goal is to stay under 2 MB and be able to run on some real tiny systems. Lonnie On 10/10/05, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George wrote: > > >> Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified > >> StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? > > > > Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX. > > Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig. > > > > http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG > > Gah. Is that... a Windows GUI? > > Just what I need, another interface to learn. Someone pester Lonnie and > tell him to make StarVX look like StarOS so I can just slap stuff in and > go. :D > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
George wrote: >> Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified >> StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? > > Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX. > Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig. > > http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG Gah. Is that... a Windows GUI? Just what I need, another interface to learn. Someone pester Lonnie and tell him to make StarVX look like StarOS so I can just slap stuff in and go. :D David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
They only thing I haven't opened yet is my set of Orthogon Spectras ... too expensive .. Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Ahhh you've never cracked one open to see what's inside? Ask Gino, you have to take everything apart and see what makes it tick. :) George Matt Liotta wrote: > That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax > jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as > opposed to N. > > -Matt > > G.Villarini wrote: > >> That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx >> jacks on >> the pcb ... >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? David Smith MVN.net Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX. Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig. http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG Other pics of various testing of the war boards: http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/ George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Ahhh you've never cracked one open to see what's inside? Ask Gino, you have to take everything apart and see what makes it tick. :) George Matt Liotta wrote: That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as opposed to N. -Matt G.Villarini wrote: That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx jacks on the pcb ... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Our test uses large packets and TCP. The problem is that the bandwidth tester consumes a lot of the CPU, so the solution is to test between machines on the edges, and thus get the true throughput without the limitations of CPU speed. Lots of guys have used desktop machines and found that the actually Atheros output can exceed 100 mbps in Turbo mode. Of course that sort of test cannot be done through an Ethernet, it is radio to radio. The advanced features of the Atheros cards will do packet aggregation for the system. Thus you will not notice any system trouble with a bunch of small packets as you get with VOIP and gaming. That type of traffic can bring a Prism system to its knees. The new StarVx also honours the VOIP priority bits in the headers. Lonnie On 10/10/05, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about > > 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU > > mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a > > quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and > > encryption turned off. > > > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > > mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > Sounds about right, give or take a couple Mbps. I've got one link > consisting of two WRAP boards, StarOS/WRAP edition, with CM-9 radio cards. > Signal is about -60, noise floats around the mid-90s. The two endpoints > are probably about 1/4 mile apart. > > StarOS's integrated bandwidth test shows about 14Mbps each way. (You have > to do both send and receive tests, from both units, to get good average > numbers, because sending the packets seems to seriously stress those > little tiny CPUs.) > > In my experience, it seems as though StarOS' numbers are very optimistic > (anywhere from 10% to 25% higher than real-world traffic). Having never > sniffed the traffic or anything, I'd guess that the bandwidth test uses > large packets (maybe even jumbo packets), but real-world IP traffic has a > lot of smaller packets, and the per-packet overhead brings down total > performance. (This is part of why many people are fond of Mikrotik's > proprietary Nstreme extension - if you can live with a couple extra > milliseconds of latency, you can get substantially better throughput by > bundling all those tiny VOIP and UDP packets together.) > > When using the StarOS built-in tester, the sending unit's CPU will hit > 100%, and the receiver's CPU hits 75% or higher, on WRAP boards. This > implies that the CPU may be the bottleneck, not the radio card or the OS. > > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, > > or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher > > processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > Get back to me in a week or two on that. :) I've gotten my hands on a > couple RB532s, and a couple extra CM-9s. Admittedly, it won't be a > completely fair test, since the RouterBoards will be running RouterOS, so > it's not a perfect comparison to Valemount's StarOS. But it's the best I > can do. > > Since the WRAPs don't have that much horsepower to begin with, in relative > terms, and since these tests pegs the CPU gauge, I suspect CPU is the > limiting factor, but I don't have any hard numbers to back this up either > way. > > Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified > StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? For that matter, anyone ever just > slapped a miniPCI-PCI converter in some cheap Dell desktop and slammed > packets through it? > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
I'm running almost the same link at 8 miles although on the rb532 - signal is about -77 dbm Dan > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:59 PM > To: Lonnie Nunweiler; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > Oops... > > I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet > legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 > mile -48. > > However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the > Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different. Any > reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db. > > So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 > db loss, unless I don't have the distance right. I do have set at 1 mile in > driver. > > However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it > now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps. I confirmed that CPU usage > hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on. So appears to > be CPU limited. > > Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails > (ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5" Ufl to N pigtails? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:59 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > > 300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You > either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with > antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you > -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling. > > Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out > the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to > be under limits throughput severely. > > Lonnie > > > > On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 > > yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The > > radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. > > All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. > > > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > > mbps, > > and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to > > SU) > > > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real > > throughput > > (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through > > in > > longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), > > retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can > > be > > much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to > > hog > > up channels. > > > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or > > the > > WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing > > speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > > > For those interested > > > > My business decission question is: > > > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > > 4) Trango has better testing tools > > 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that > > cost > > ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent > > availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), > > > > What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for > > small community projects? > > > > 802.11 Atheros gives you... > > > > 1) Mesh designs > > 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only > > a > > $50 cost per radio card added. > > 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. > > 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. > > 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. > > 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for eas
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Actually, I also have made the mods in the past. My point is the manufacturer should make the mods. Maybe they will someday, if they keep hearing justification spelled out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because l
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Oops... I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 mile -48. However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different. Any reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db. So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 db loss, unless I don't have the distance right. I do have set at 1 mile in driver. However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps. I confirmed that CPU usage hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on. So appears to be CPU limited. Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails (ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5" Ufl to N pigtails? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling. Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to be under limits throughput severely. Lonnie On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote re
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
> I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about > 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU > mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a > quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and > encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. Sounds about right, give or take a couple Mbps. I've got one link consisting of two WRAP boards, StarOS/WRAP edition, with CM-9 radio cards. Signal is about -60, noise floats around the mid-90s. The two endpoints are probably about 1/4 mile apart. StarOS's integrated bandwidth test shows about 14Mbps each way. (You have to do both send and receive tests, from both units, to get good average numbers, because sending the packets seems to seriously stress those little tiny CPUs.) In my experience, it seems as though StarOS' numbers are very optimistic (anywhere from 10% to 25% higher than real-world traffic). Having never sniffed the traffic or anything, I'd guess that the bandwidth test uses large packets (maybe even jumbo packets), but real-world IP traffic has a lot of smaller packets, and the per-packet overhead brings down total performance. (This is part of why many people are fond of Mikrotik's proprietary Nstreme extension - if you can live with a couple extra milliseconds of latency, you can get substantially better throughput by bundling all those tiny VOIP and UDP packets together.) When using the StarOS built-in tester, the sending unit's CPU will hit 100%, and the receiver's CPU hits 75% or higher, on WRAP boards. This implies that the CPU may be the bottleneck, not the radio card or the OS. > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, > or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher > processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? Get back to me in a week or two on that. :) I've gotten my hands on a couple RB532s, and a couple extra CM-9s. Admittedly, it won't be a completely fair test, since the RouterBoards will be running RouterOS, so it's not a perfect comparison to Valemount's StarOS. But it's the best I can do. Since the WRAPs don't have that much horsepower to begin with, in relative terms, and since these tests pegs the CPU gauge, I suspect CPU is the limiting factor, but I don't have any hard numbers to back this up either way. Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? For that matter, anyone ever just slapped a miniPCI-PCI converter in some cheap Dell desktop and slammed packets through it? David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as opposed to N. -Matt G.Villarini wrote: That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx jacks on the pcb ... Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx jacks on the pcb ... Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about > 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU > mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a > quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and > encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP > to SU) > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real > throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. > Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or > CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you > know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of > course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, > or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher > processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > For those interested > > My business decission question is: > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > 4) Trango has better testing tools > 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew > that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, > pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote > management, ARQ, etc), > > What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even > for small community projects? > > 802.11 Atheros gives you... > > 1) Mesh designs > 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with > only a $50 cost per radio card added. > 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. > 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. > 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. > 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly > adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). > > #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to > discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top > approval. > > My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / > multi-tenant complex. > I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), > apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a > Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex > placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP > side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN > switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for > Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many > complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an > example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would > add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance > of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices > (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot > devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical > VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use > VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from > seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly > centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed > to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change > over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's > misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. > Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The > misconfigured client only gets effected. > > I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, > figure ou
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag In summary... 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again so what. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
The wraps have a limitation, maybe the client does as well. Turn on the advanced features and it will go more speed. Buy WAR boads and StarVX and go TWICE as fast or use HALF the channel space. George Tom DeReggi wrote: I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag In summary... 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again so what. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Or
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling. Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to be under limits throughput severely. Lonnie On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 > yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The > radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. > All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, > and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput > (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in > longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), > retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be > much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog > up channels. > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the > WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing > speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > For those interested > > My business decission question is: > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > 4) Trango has better testing tools > 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost > ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent > availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), > > What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for > small community projects? > > 802.11 Atheros gives you... > > 1) Mesh designs > 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a > $50 cost per radio card added. > 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. > 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. > 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. > 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly > adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). > > #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss > the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. > > My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / > multi-tenant complex. > I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), > apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 > degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik > 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would > normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, > apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports > including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. > But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN > switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with > maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two > devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote > reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical > VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN > support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end > users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth > manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs > and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in > advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other > users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it > can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. > > I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out > how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd > argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the > project. > > Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a > Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because > large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN > custoemrs to untag > > In summary... > > 1) If Trango would add a
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Change to Motorola Canopy ! ducking ! Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag In summary... 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type projects. It
RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
I would imagine that it's the WRAP's CPU which should be visable at the bottom of the screen. If you disable all connection tracking (option 8 under the advanced tab) you should get around 20mbps on the speed tests. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: 10 October 2005 20:37 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag In summary... 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of
[WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag In summary... 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again so what. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 Current News Level3 did it to themselves, Cogent customers didn't
