This may be the case, but the test we perform seems to describe what we see in real life use. As long as you have consistency it does not matter what you do. The ability to compare apples to apples is what is truly important, and since we began to use TCP many years ago, we still continue to do so, since it gives us a relevance and comparison to the systems in current use.
My TCP numbers are lower than you'll get with a UDP test, so I am quite happy to compare my TCP to UDP because my TCP numbers are pretty nearly as high as numbers I hear reported for other high end systems that test with UDP. For instance, our TCP numbers on a WRAP board were always in the 23 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, which is a number I have never seen even in my dreams doing an FTP transfer (with the WRAP boards). Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. Our goal is to give you numbers you will see in real life. After all, your user is going to be ragging on you based on the FTP results they see. I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a lower grade product because of a test method sure indicates a conclusion that needs to be re-examined. Results are what count, not how pretty you look or how good you sound. We have come pretty close to the goal of real world numbers, so I am not fazed at all by your lower grade product ranking. It is strange to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to have the whole file delivered intact. Regards, Lonnie On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The > reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, and > at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointless. I > see some people do TCP speed tests (a method other than FTP), and it goes > full capacity minus the percent packet loss of a percent or so. But then > when a FTP gets done performance drops to a few hundred kb. The reason is > FTP slows itself down to attempt to reduce packetloss. IN many wireless > systems, the packetloss stays consistent and can not be removed by reducing > speed, therefore the speed just keeps going slower and slower and slower > until it crawls. A TCP test also does not show consistency of a link, or > sparatic slow down, as they all get averaged out over the time period of the > test. If there are slowdown or hesitance on a wireless link using a UDP > test, the packetloss is instantly seen. Doing a TCP test may show peek > speed or average speed, but it does not show the ability to deliver > consistent speed, what most companies need that are buying wireless to > replace T1 lines. > > Relying on TCP test alone, limits your product to a lower grade product, > less than it can be. An adequate test, does not need to be a UDP test, it > can also be a layer2 test. The most valuable tool of Trango for example is > its Layer2 Linktest, that shows throughput, and most importantly packetloss > while performing that test. It gives the abilty to run a test that takes > priority over any other traffic on the link, to get the true full > performance of that link at that moment in time. It allows an integrator to > instantly be able to determine the health of their links with total > accuracy, quickly, without first disconnecting clients, that can be > complicated, when multiple Linux re-configures might be needed to stop all > other traffic. > > For radios that don't have their own MAC, Iperf is one way to get most of > the data collected. Measuring packet loss is more important than measuring > top speed in my mind. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:54 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never > be seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at > building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in > future. > > I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 > km of repeater distances. The shot is split in half with mountain > shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to > the POP in each town. We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It > is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. I have pasted a speed test from > the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. Both are Linux systems > with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth > control. Also I have the traceroute to show the hops. > > lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx > rx rate: 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) > lon-home:~/staros # > > lon-home:~/staros # traceroute 10.10.29.1 > traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms > 2 10.10.48.254 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms > 3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms > 4 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms > 5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms 3.581 ms > 6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms > 7 10.14.99.254 12.615 ms * 5.777 ms > 8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms > lon-home:~/staros # > > Lonnie > > On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lonnie, > > > > Is that TCP or UDP? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > > Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps > > of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. > > > > Lonnie > > > > On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dan, > > > > We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on > > another wireless list. > > > > What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have > > seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic > > passing > > thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of > > MT > > have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. > > > > > > > > I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. > > Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP > > and all the other features available make a nice system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan Metcalf > > Wireless Broadband Systems > > www.wbisp.com > > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 > > > > 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis > > Johnson > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards > > in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site > > > > http://www.staros.com/starvx/ > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > So... Who makes them?, how much? > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that > > George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and > > even > > seems to improve signal quality. > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > > > Guys; > > These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a > > WISP > > > > operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 > > feet, > > another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and > > someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by > > conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel > > spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other > > guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do > > not > > > > need. > > > > Lee > > > > > > Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunstream AP's in use. > > > > They > > > > > > > > are like Timex watches. > > > > I'm using Star War boards. A little bit more than the trango s. The 2 > > > > card > > > > > > boards in a 5 gig rootenna let me use the 2nd card for an omni. > > Speeds are about 20+ megs or so and I cloak down to 5MHz and 10MHz > > > > channel > > > > > > sizes. > > > > One of the things I've been doing is slapping up repeaters all over the > > place. Cheap as hell, about 400.00 or so. > > > > Lately I've ran lmr400 into some of my customers attics and installed an > > omni for their home wifi. We tend to service our customers right to the > > > > pc > > > > > > and it's a lot better router than a linksys. And I have happier customers > > and I'm happier. > > > > The 2 port and the 4 port both have dual ethernet as well. > > > > Pretty versatile product. Lonnie has come along way with the new war > > platform. > > > > > > George > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > > > > > That's on quantity 30.... $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3 > > > > miles > > > > > > > > (add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to > > > > 10Mbps. > > > > > > > > > > Hard to beat! And with SmartPolling on the AP, you can get hundreds of > > customers per sector. > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Rick Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > that's only quantity (large!) pricing isn't it ? > > > > Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > > > > > > > > If it's pretty absent of trees you might look at 5.8. Trango has that > > cpe for $150. Not going to find any propriety gear cheaper. > > > > Richard Goodin wrote: > > > > > > > > I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin > > delivery of bandwidth to customers. My choice for service delivery > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 802.11b, but with increased competition from other services nearby > > (about 5 miles away) I am wondering how to avoid problems. I have a > > 50' tower, and it is ROHN 45g. My choice for antennas would be 4 90 > > degree horizontal antennas. I have looked at bandwidth and shopped > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to death. My best price is $400 from Lime Light. And I've built a > > couple of servers, acquired some switches and a router. The Router > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a Cisco 1750. > > > > My questions: > > > > What CPE's and AP's would work best in this environment? I want to > > keep interferance to a minimum, as well as control costs. My > > environment includes lots of desert, and single story buildings. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > 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: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006 > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006 > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > 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: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 04/10/2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 04/10/2006 > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > > > 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: [email protected] > > > > 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: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
