If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: > To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in > ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation > levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just > higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close. > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse > shortcuts or typos. > > Rory Conaway > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Rory Conaway <[email protected]> > Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take > into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are > also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you > could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you > want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse > shortcuts or typos. > > Rory Conaway > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea > what you are talking about right now. > > What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. > In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of > efficiency. > > This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on > PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this > discussion. > On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: > > Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you > aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse > shortcuts or typos. > > Rory Conaway > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, > that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor > of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the > other side of the radios. > > Its an efficiency issue. > On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > > I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you > from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could > support. > > Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... > but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing > anything close to what it would with a good link. > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this > discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel > efficiency per say. > On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: > > The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of > small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the > real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken > into account. > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse > shortcuts or typos. > > Rory Conaway > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out > of some on this list ;) > On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 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 > > > > >
