PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may > be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in > SM role. > > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way > back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all > XM gear. > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I would have to se your data, mine does not support that. >> >> >> >> 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 Luthman <[email protected]> >> Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
