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> <mailto: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 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel: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 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel: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 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel: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 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel: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
