Which routers/brands are you referring to? And what do you consider the good brands?
Al ------ At 06:45 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, RickG wrote: ------- >Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off >the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% >throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other >issues such as disconnects, etc. >-RickG > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > This could be a very touchy topic. > > Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there > > problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your > > location or your ISP's its inevitable. > > But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact > > that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't > > doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy > > on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers > > don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they > > remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > > > > As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of > > speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know > > back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan > > to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down > > under the 10Mb/s mark. > > I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and > > its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the > > standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > From: "Al Stewart" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Thanks ... this helps. > > > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > > at least what the > > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > > ALL the routers in the system. > > > > Al > > > > ------ At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: ------- > > > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >>address those conditions. > >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > > and/or > >>lots of uploads. > >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing > > to > >>be up or down during the congestion time. > >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because > > its > >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > > Therfore > >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited > > amount > >>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >> > >>We took a two prong approach to fix. > >> > >>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set > > to > >>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to > > have > >>a time slice for uploading. > >> > >>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every > > users > >>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >> > >>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >> > >>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >>really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >>service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively > > to > >>most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >>mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb > >>plans. > >> > >> But the key is Queuing.... If you dont have it, when congestion is > > reached > >>packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end > > user, > >>because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also > >>learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to > > slower > >>speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of > > the > >>radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > >> > >>VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing > > video, > >>it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if > >>someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets > >>discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > >> > >>Tom DeReggi > >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Al Stewart" > >>To: "WISPA General List" > >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM > >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >> > >> > >> > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > >> > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > >> > or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc > >> > at the same time? > >> > > >> > Al > >> > > >> > ------ At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: ------- > >> > > >> >>At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would > > be > >> >>better. > >> >> > >> >>Chris Cooper > >> >>Intelliwave > >> >> > >> >>-----Original Message----- > >> >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > On > >> >>Behalf Of Al Stewart > >> >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM > >> >>To: WISPA General List > >> >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >> >> > >> >>Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > >> >>meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > >> >>connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > >> >>point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > >> >>bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > >> >>has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > >> >> > >> >>We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > >> >> > >> >>Al > >> >> > >> >> > > -------------- END QUOTE --------------------- -------------- END QUOTE --------------------- --------------------- Al Stewart [email protected] --------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
