Paul,  keep us posted, thi is really good input

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.767.7466

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Hendry
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:06 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

Tom,

        You say that "connection tracking" is on. I advised you to turn this
of (i.e untick all the boxes in the connection tracking sub menu). To give
an example, we have a 28km link with WRAP's/CM9's/5.8GHz at each end. Signal
sits at around -71 (qual 24) and we hard set the rate on both end to 36.
With connection tracking completely turned of we get around 20mbps using the
StarOS built-in speed test.

        Have just received some of the 2 port WAR boards with the slower CPU
and have spent the past day testing them. So far I am able to get about the
same throughput as a WRAP when setting the channel bandwidth to 5Mhz
(cloaking x4) and double that when set to 10Mhz (cloaking x2). Haven't
really tested them at normal 20Mhz or 40Mhz (turbo) as we have no intention
of using them at 20 or 40Mhz. I am in the process of setting up a test
environment with Mikrotik routers at each end of a StarVX link so I can run
the various types of bandwidth tests available in RouterOS. The link has
been set with the same signal levels as our 28km link so as to emulate it as
much as we can without having to set-up another 28km link and so far I have
seen 40mbps udp tests from Mikrotik to Mikrotik with 10Mhz bandwidth which
is pretty amazing. I think we could see even more but the 2 Mikrotik boxes
are running with CPU at 100% :( Once we've built some new test boxes I'll
post my results.

Cheers,

P.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: 10 October 2005 23:59
To: Lonnie Nunweiler; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

Oops...

I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet 
legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 
mile -48.

However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the 
Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different.  Any

reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db.

So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 
db loss, unless I don't have the distance right.  I do have set at 1 mile in

driver.

However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it 
now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps.  I confirmed that CPU usage 
hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on.  So appears to 
be CPU limited.

Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails

(ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5" Ufl to N pigtails?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <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 RB532&daughter card.
> 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
> 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly
> adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).
>
> #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss
> the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval.
>
> My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building /
> multi-tenant complex.
> I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range),
> apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 
> 60
> degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik
> 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side.  On the MTU side, I 
> would
> normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building,
> apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports
> including RB532).  Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per 
> building.
> But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN
> switch  would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with
> maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two
> devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote
> reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a 
> typical
> VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use 
> VLAN
> support for several reasons.  1) it protects end users from seeing other 
> end
> users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth
> manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to 
> IPs
> and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known 
> in
> advance.   3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other
> users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, 
> it
> can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected.
>
>  I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure 
> out
> how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd
> argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the
> project.
>
> Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a
> Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, 
> because
> large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN
> custoemrs to untag
>
> In summary...
>
> 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP
> line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of 
> home
> brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type
> projects.  It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again 
> so
> what.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>

--
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/


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 10/9/2005


-- 
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: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 09/10/2005
 

-- 
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/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to