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 <j...@spitwspots.com>
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
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 <r...@triadwireless.net> 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 <j...@spitwspots.com>
Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
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 <mhoward...@gmail.com> 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
<j...@spitwspots.com <mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> 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
<r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
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 <j...@spitwspots.com
<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>>
Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
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 <jeremysmi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> 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
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> 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"
<j...@spitwspots.com
<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> 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
<mhoward...@gmail.com
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> 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 <sleb...@muskoka.com
<mailto:sleb...@muskoka.com>> 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:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On
Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
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:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On
Behalf Of Craig House
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
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
