Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-11-14 Thread Dan Petermann
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

2005-11-14 Thread Paul Hendry
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

2005-11-14 Thread Rick Harnish
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

2005-11-14 Thread Paul Hendry
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

2005-11-13 Thread Paul Hendry
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

2005-11-13 Thread Dylan Oliver
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

2005-11-13 Thread Paul Hendry








What about NLOS (trees and buildings) @ 3km
with a max EIRP of 33db (as thats 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

2005-11-13 Thread Rick Harnish








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 thats 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

2005-11-13 Thread G.Villarini
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

2005-10-20 Thread Paul Hendry
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
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman

RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-20 Thread Scott Reed




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' wireless@wispa.org 


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://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

RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-20 Thread danlist
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 - 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: 267.12.2/140 - Release Date: 10/18/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/140 - Release Date: 10/18/2005
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-20 Thread David E. Smith

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

2005-10-20 Thread Paul Hendry
[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
 
 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

2005-10-19 Thread Paul Hendry
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

2005-10-19 Thread David E. Smith
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

2005-10-13 Thread Paul Hendry
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

2005-10-11 Thread Paul Hendry
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 wireless@wispa.org
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

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-11 Thread George

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

2005-10-10 Thread G.Villarini
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 RB532daughter 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, 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
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 RB532daughter 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 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread George

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 RB532daughter 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


- 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Matt Liotta
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 RB532daughter 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

2005-10-10 Thread G.Villarini
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 RB532daughter 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

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Matt Liotta
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 RB532daughter 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

RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread David E. Smith

 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

2005-10-10 Thread Tom DeReggi

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 wireless@wispa.org
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 RB532daughter 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

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Tom DeReggi
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 wireless@wispa.org
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 RB532daughter 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

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
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

2005-10-10 Thread George

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

2005-10-10 Thread George


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

2005-10-10 Thread David E. Smith
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/