Oh, so thermal noise. I think operators have more or less have just coined noise as anything that reduces the utility of the link.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Sullivan" <daniel.sulli...@cambiumnetworks.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 1:36:39 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Plenty of SNR, MCS 0 Hi, SNR reports the signal to noise ratio. If there is additional interference, then the CINR (carrier to interference and noise ratio) will be less than SNR. If there is no interference, then CINR will be the same as SNR. Therefore, SNR is your best case and reflects expected performance on a clean channel (i.e. without interference). Daniel Sullivan ePMP Systems and Software Manager From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Plenty of SNR, MCS 0 I think there is an issue in general with any radio built on Atheros chips sets. It appears to me that if the interference is _NOT_ 802.11-based, then it does not exist. So this affects any radios that use an Atheros chip set. UBNT, ePMP, Mikrotik, etc. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 7/6/2016 5:18 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Has the SNR reading on the ePMP series proven accurate? I know to not believe the UBNT AirMax one and IIRC, the same with Mikrotik. I have a link that has 23 dB of SNR (from both sides of a PtP), yet maintains MCS 0 for uplink and downlink. The link is down about 10 dB for some unknown reason (maybe wind from last night's storm blew one of the ends), but 23 dB should be plenty to do a little better than 0. Running 2.6.2 and both sides have been rebooted.
