Its pretty impressive... On Jan 5, 2016 2:31 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We finally got our 900mhz 450i put up... so far, I'm impressed. > We only have two clients on it at this point, but if the link tests are > anything to go by, it's a bit better than the PMP100 it replaced... > > VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive > Actual Actual > 18 95.00 Mbps 14.60 Mbps 109.61 Mbps, 7916 pps 68661 (6866 > pps) 10501(1050 pps) > > > VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive > Actual Actual > 19 31.93 Mbps 6.50 Mbps 38.43 Mbps, 2767 pps 23034 (2303 > pps) 4645(464 pps) > > > I have it running on a 20mhz channel right now, just because I can (there > isn't any other 900mhz in the area), the second connection is a little on > the weak side because of some terrain issues, but it actually wasn't too > much worse running on a 10mhz channel (about 30mbps aggregate, if I > remember right). It's not the best time of year to be testing NLOS > connections, but signal levels are pretty close to what they were with the > PMP100, so I have a pretty good idea what to expect... I'm hoping that dual > slant will cut through the leaves a bit better than single H-pol did, but > even if signal levels are only as good as the PMP100 was in the summer, > this is going to be very usable. > > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That's pretty good, I was expecting an average of more like 18-20ms. The >> occasional spike to 250 for 1 or 2 seconds at a time is not unexpected at >> 900MHz with noise and retransmits. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> >>> SM is bridged and has an RFC1918 IP. Test would have to be run on-net. >>> >>> I just tried a few ping tests from the (Cisco) tower router. 100 pings >>> typically comes back around 4/10/35 for min/avg/max. I ran 1000 pings >>> though and got 4/11/48, ran another 1000 and got 4/12/248. Zero packet >>> loss, but apparently noise can cause an occasional latency spike, probably >>> due to upstream. >>> >>> >>> *From:* Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:15 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz 450i update with better results :-) >>> >>> Any chance of running 'mtr' against the CPE IP of house #2 and leaving >>> it for a few hours? I'm curious what the min/max/average latency looks >>> like. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >>> >>>> So yesterday I did some tweaking on the sync parameters and was able to >>>> get better results. I'll put the details in a second post, but I wanted to >>>> update the grim picture I painted the other day. >>>> >>>> As initially set up, I was only getting 1X MIMO-A, even on a 5 MHz >>>> channel and after trying a bunch of frequencies, and the SMs would not >>>> reliably stay registered. >>>> >>>> After tweaking the sync parameters and channel, I was able to get one >>>> sub to 4X MIMO-B and the other to 2X MIMO-B, and increase the channel width >>>> to 7 MHz. They have stayed registered now for 18 hours and while the speed >>>> varies a bit they hold 4X and 2X. Here are linktest results I just ran: >>>> >>>> subscriber #1 >>>> 2 miles with a few bare trees and apparently some multipath issues >>>> 2X MIMO-B >>>> 8.6M down, 4.4M up, 13.0M aggregate >>>> >>>> subscriber #2 >>>> 8 miles with 2 lines of trees and a house in the path >>>> 4X MIMO-B >>>> 14.6M down, 4.6M up, 19.3M aggregate >>>> >>>> The AP and subscriber #1 have bad interference across the band, >>>> interference is not as bad at subscriber #2. >>>> >>>> These numbers may not look great compared to 100M aggregate capacity, >>>> but they are around a 6 times improvement over what we had with FSK. I'm >>>> sure we would see better results at another site with less interference, in >>>> fact I have another tower where we can run 2X FSK but 4M aggregate just >>>> isn't enough capacity. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
