Hi Nathan, The trunking between EPC and Compacts is licensed 2+0 in and out at most locations with 10 gig uplinks that tie the microwave networks into the fiber network. Latency is approx 1 ms from ENB to EPC. We are using Sub frame 1/1 and do not use the EPC for queuing. We set each UE to max and traffic shape the customer at the router. We have had over a 100 UEs on an eNB and still had great performance with plans ranging from 3-20 Mbps. I'm just noticing slower speedtest on web based tests vs iperf. Like I said it's not causing performance issues just proof to customer issues. People will just call because they get 7 Mbps not 10 Mbps. If you fire up multiple movie streams then their service plan will show its reaching its set data rate. -- Justin Davis COO SkyWerx Industries, LLC
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 4:56 AM, Nathan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Less-than-perfect trunking of S1 traffic between the Compacts and the EPC can > definitely cause performance issues...we have the scar tissue to prove it. > So I wonder if Justin and Matt are actually talking about different issues, > or if Justin is experiencing both (double whammy). If the backhauling > between Compact and EPC is in good shape, you should not see a dramatic > difference in measured performance between local EPC and centralized EPC. > > I am glad to see this discussion taking place, though, because we have been > seeing similar things with upload performance recently. It doesn't seem to > be as bad if we simply crank up the upload AMBR value, which had led me to > wonder if perhaps the problem was with how the EPC is queueing or limiting > traffic (thus some of my posts a couple of weeks back). I will have to run > some additional tests to see if we also see a correlation between Compacts > that have a higher CPE count vs. those with a lower number of clients. My > hunch is that the problem could be at least band-aided over if we used > subframe profile 1, but that assumes that sf 1 works and we have also been > burned by that in the past. > > It is reassuring to know that others who are experiencing this are in > communication with Telrad already and that it is being worked on, so I await > further updates with bated breath. > > -- Nathan > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Matthew Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Telrad] Issues > > Are two EPC are located at the Datacenter. > None of our eNB are located in the same location as the Datacenter. > > I mostly use iperf from the UE back to the Datacenter for a good speedtest. > I know customers use speedtest.net (we have a speedtest.net service in our > Datacenter also). > Results between iperf and speedtest.net are very close to the same. > > I have neve taken a EPC out to the tower where a eNB is located. > > Packages we sell on LTE are 5,10,15,20. Most are on the 10 or 15 Mbit plan. > Upload is 1 or 2 mbit and most are on the 1 Mbit. > > So you are saying that the S1 tunnel between the EPC and eNB could be causing > an issue? I have not really seen any speed problems until we got to around > 25-30UE’s on a eNB, at that point I have been unable to get the upload speeds. > You would think on a 80x10 plan (for us only to test with), and the eNB only > moving small amount of data I should be able to 60x7, but I only see around > 14Mbit x 600K. > > Matt Carpenter > > > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Skywerx Support <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What about on say for example speedtest.net with a UE connected to and eNB > where the EPC is located vs a UE connected to an eNB that is not. We are > putting 80 UE's on our eNB's with no problem. Performance is always there > but we do see a difference with web based speedtests when the eNB's are not > at the EPC site. > > -- > Justin Davis > COO > SkyWerx Industries, LLC > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Carpenter > <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have a new eNB with only 3 UE’s on it, speed tests (iperf) this evening > are 63x7.5 4x4TM4 Mode and 2/0 frame config. > > If I run a iperf on a UE connected to a eNB with 40+ UE’s then I find the > download is in the 14-18Mbit range, but the upload is 300-600K. > Checking the eNB in Breezeview it shows very little usage at the time I > tested. > > I need to check all eNB if see if they exhibit this same upload speed issues. > From little rumblings in the Service Dept I think I will find they all do > this. > > Nick is working on this and I am sure he will come up with a solution soon. > > Matt Carpenter > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:58 PM, Skywerx Support <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We have two 2020 centralized also with 8 eNB talking to one and 7 eNB to the > other. Are you seeing similar throughout on all eNB's that are not located > where the EPC's are? > > -- > Justin Davis > COO > SkyWerx Industries, LLC > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Matthew Carpenter > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Two Centralized EPCs. > > Right now they are 1010RPL (2020L), but we are software upgrading them to the > 2020CS this week. > > Matt Carpenter > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Skywerx Support <[email protected]> > wrote: > Matt, > > Are you using site based or centralized EPC? > > Thanks > > -- > Justin Davis > COO > SkyWerx Industries, LLC > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Matthew Carpenter > <[email protected]> wrote: > > From what I have seen running 4573: > > 1. 4x4TM4 is working good. I have 2 eNB’s using it with good speeds through > trees. In one location I saw 63Mbit x 7.3Mbit and a CINR of 27. UBNT 5ghz at > this same location was around 79db and we would not install. > 2. Better performance. Jury is still out on this one. Like a few of you > have stated the Upload speeds are not where they should be 2/0 config and > only 1mbit of upload and I only see 700-800K on iperf test. > 3. There are some timer changes that extend the amount of time a action > happens. > > Stable, with 7000 and 8000’s both working good, except for the speed issues > that I stated above. > Telrad support is working on them now. > > Matt Carpenter > Amarillo Wireless > > > > On Nov 16, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Ian Fraser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No release notes that I find (?) So what's the benefit ? > > -- > Ian Fraser > goZoom.ca Inc. > 195 Libby's Rd. McNab-Braeside > K7S0E1 > 877(613) 622 0093 ext 21 > > On 16/11/2016 4:39 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Ian Fraser <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm still on 4013. Has 4573 fixed anything for anyone ? Like the high > upload utilization ? I'm using sf2/ssf0. Changing subframe is not an option > for me - I need to co-exist with a another provider who will never change. > > 4573 seems fairly stable for us with 7ks running .105 and 8ks. Didn't fix the > upload KPI or (as far as we can tell) performance. > > > -- > Jeremy Austin > > (907) 895-2311 > (907) 803-5422 > [email protected] > > Heritage NetWorks > Whitestone Power & Communications > Vertical Broadband, LLC > > Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon > > > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > > > > > -- > Matthew Carpenter > 806-316-5071 office > 806-236-9558 cell > > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad > > _______________________________________________ > Telrad mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad
_______________________________________________ Telrad mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/telrad
