That doesn't make much sense since the wlan and eth ports are bridged. The cpu isn't involved unless you're routing/NATing the two interfaces.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, > that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor > would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work > better. > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't know how epmp does it. >>> >>> For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a "fat" 20mhz channel in the atheros >>> chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning >>> radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack >>> of gigabit port. >>> On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series >>> between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but >>> I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster >>> processor and on a software level they are very different. >>> >>> So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and >>> PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I >>> haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel >>> works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels >>> bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway >>> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >>> >>> I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things >>> that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with >>> bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely >>> hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower >>> s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the >>> sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. >>> Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity >>> and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older >>> 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz >>> processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We >>> did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's >>> non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were >>> online. >>> >>> Rory >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig House >>> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >>> >>> We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those >>> towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are >>> configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended >>> up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back >>> designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have >>> tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability >>> has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point >>> I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will >>> vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a >>> 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless >>> link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this >>> poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have >>> this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals >>> and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that >>> have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with >>> -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my >>> head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change >>> everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on >>> the same channel? >>> I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are >>> adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying >>> old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >
