What's that matter? It's not like we care about the constitution any more.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Sounds familiar... > > That's me invigorating the economy. Mike for President. ;-) Wait, I > won't be old enough this election. > > > > ----- > 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: *"Erich Kaiser" <er...@northcentraltower.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:31:50 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Epmp user throughput > > It could be a laptop issue, one time someone made fun of my laptop so I > went out and bought an i7 laptop and now I can run speedtests all day long > with no problem... > > > Erich Kaiser > North Central Tower > er...@northcentraltower.com > Office: 630-621-4804 > Cell: 630-777-9291 > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote: > >> I'm not doing any MT Queuing, the Only Queue is the EPMP QOS. I put a >> MT in Bridge mode at one of the customer locations for bandwidth testing >> after the customer was complaining about slow speeds. The MT BW Test to >> that Bridge runs as expected. It's reassuring that others are not seeing >> this. >> >> >> On 7/22/2015 5:43 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> Also, the two tests may be different. Speedtest.net type test may be >> saying I see packet loss starting at X Mbps so the rate is X, while iPerf >> type test may say I see Y Mbps goodput despite some packet loss so the rate >> is Y. >> >> This may be interacting with the queuing method, as Mike points out. >> >> Perhaps set the ePMP to wide open and see if customer results change, >> then set queue in Miktrotik and see what happens. >> >> >> *From:* Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:30 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Epmp user throughput >> >> I read it as using the ePMP for queuing, the performance is less than >> expected. Using the MT for queuing, the performance is as expected. >> >> >> >> ----- >> 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: *"Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:57:18 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Epmp user throughput >> >> If the Mikrotiks at the customer site are doing 40x10 but the customer >> devices behind the MT it doesn't really make sense to look at the epmp for >> your problem. >> >> It could be the Mikrotik's CPU, port, wireless or the customer device. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote: >> >>> I have deployed quite a bit of epmp, but most people are at my base >>> package, 4x1 (using the radio qos to limit bw on different tiers). Of the >>> handful of people that are on larger plans, 20x5 or 40x10, 2 of them, on >>> different towers are complaining that they struggle to get over 10mb on a >>> speed test. The radio rf link test performs at the assigned qos level, and >>> I sent one of them a mikrotik to go between the poe and his router (qos >>> 40x10), and udp/tcp tests to that are coming back as expected. However, I >>> can be watching the router, and his interface plugged directly into a >>> laptop only runs like 10x2 during a speedtest. Do both of these customers >>> have something wonky with their laptops, or is there a setting in epmp I'm >>> overlooking? Most of our epmp deployment has been FSK upgrades, so I >>> haven't had much actual laptop time myself behind an epmp sm, as we just go >>> on the roof and change radios. >>> >>> Nate >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
