And you can legally do it until this Friday.
*From:* Josh Reynolds <mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Paul McCall" <pa...@pdmnet.net <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>>
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>>
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>>
Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
