And you can legally do it until this Friday.
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years
using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have
never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal
with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul McCall" <pa...@pdmnet.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
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 <part15...@gmail.com> 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 <r...@triadwireless.net>
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 <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
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 <r...@triadwireless.net>
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 <r...@triadwireless.net>
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
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 <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>
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> 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>
Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: 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> 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> 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> 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> 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>
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] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM
To: 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] On Behalf Of Craig House
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM
To: 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
