Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 22:09 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > In our bench testing, the RB1000 actually performs very well. You > can't just compare CPU's (as I'm sure you know). The RB1000 was > designed from the ground up to move packets. The Atom CPU was designed > as an inexpensive computer system. Yes, the RB1k IS a very fast packet processor for the money, but I'd be surprised if it could keep up with that dual core. Maybe it could. I've been wrong before, and the Atom is one platform I've never even seen firsthand. > I think I have a dual-core 1.6ghz Atom board and CPU (Intel brand of > both) and an RB1000. I can run some performance tests... what do you > want to see? Don't go to that trouble on MY account. If it is of interest to you (or others on the list), then by all means do so. I'd recommend some bandwidth tests with very small packets to see how many it can process in routed mode. Try the same tests with large packets. Also, throughput with large and small packets when NAT is active. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 21:18 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: > My ignorance may be showing, but by 2xFE i assume you mean 2 fast ethernet > adapters ie 10/100 > both the adapters on that supermicro are Gig (10/100/1000) Perhaps I misread the specs. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
But i believe the RB1000 has a coprocessor for certain applicaitons so you can't really have a global which is better although you could choose the best tool for certain task... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "can...@believewireless.net" > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:49 AM > To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom > > If you are doing BGP, I will take a dual core CPU over a single core > even if it's slower. On Mikrotik, BGP updates kill the CPU which can > cause packet loss and other issues that happen when the CPU spikes to > 100%. With dual cores, BGP updates eat up 100% of only one core and > the second can handle routing and other functions. > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > I figure the RB1000 is faster, its "made" for routing. > > But I'm sure the atom platform could hold its ground. > > I'd mainly like to see bandwidth tests. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "Travis Johnson" > > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:09 AM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom > > > > In our bench testing, the RB1000 actually performs very well. You can't > > just compare CPU's (as I'm sure you know). The RB1000 was designed from > > the ground up to move packets. The Atom CPU was designed as an > > inexpensive computer system. > > > > I think I have a dual-core 1.6ghz Atom board and CPU (Intel brand of > > both) and an RB1000. I can run some performance tests... what do you > > want to see? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Butch Evans wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > > > > Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only with 2 FE ports). > > > > > > > > About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is > > 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT > > more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
The price lol Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Travis Johnson" > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:09 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
If you are doing BGP, I will take a dual core CPU over a single core even if it's slower. On Mikrotik, BGP updates kill the CPU which can cause packet loss and other issues that happen when the CPU spikes to 100%. With dual cores, BGP updates eat up 100% of only one core and the second can handle routing and other functions. On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > I figure the RB1000 is faster, its "made" for routing. > But I'm sure the atom platform could hold its ground. > I'd mainly like to see bandwidth tests. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "Travis Johnson" > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:09 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom > > In our bench testing, the RB1000 actually performs very well. You can't > just compare CPU's (as I'm sure you know). The RB1000 was designed from > the ground up to move packets. The Atom CPU was designed as an > inexpensive computer system. > > I think I have a dual-core 1.6ghz Atom board and CPU (Intel brand of > both) and an RB1000. I can run some performance tests... what do you > want to see? > > Travis > Microserv > > Butch Evans wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > > Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only with 2 FE ports). > > > > About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is > 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT > more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
Poppycock! Here's the root of the problem. All of the WiFi devices that I know of handle the authentication and admin functions at the 1 meg level. Maybe g handles it at 6 meg but it's still the *most sensitive* level. Most multipath is knife edge. The signal bounces off of a wire, the peak of a roof, the corner of a metal building etc. That signal is usually about 30dB less than the main signal. So, what happens when you have a -60 signal with a -90 echo (multipath for audio) into a device that has a receive sensitivity of -96? According to Ubiquity the NS2 has a 54 meg receive sensitivity of -74. It's 6 meg is -94 and it's 1 meg is an amazing -97! So really, anything over a -67 signal level opens the door to a lot of multipath for a lot of things that go on. Want to test this theory? Turn the power DOWN on the ap and cpe. Drop it to -70 or so on both ends and see what the performance does. I just installed a link to day. -82 signal (to one of my WORST ap's), 15ish mile link. The customer got 3 megs down and 3 up. A better signal would have certainly helped, but -60 wouldn't make up for the distance that much. What a -60 at the cpe would have indicated is that my ap's will be much more likely to interfere with each other. Every time I think I know what the geography around here is like I find another situation where my ap's see each other where I thought it totally impossible. Just yesterday I picked up a system that's got 17db into an 8db omni. The recieving system was a MT with an xr2 and 8dB omni. The two systems were over 20 MILES apart, probably closer to 30, I've not run the numbers yet. If the signal levels were too high I'd be my own worst source of interference on these two systems! The idea that "too much is never enough" only works well for hotrods and bombs. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy Marlon, Since when is a -60 too hot of a signal? If you look at the spec sheets for testing on most of the wireless cards, you will see that -60 is their "ideal" signal. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Change from b to g or g to be mode. Turn your power WAY down. That's way too hot of a signal. Any metal, trees, houses, power lines etc. anywhere near the signal path? This looks a LOT like multipath. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mark McElvy" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
I figure the RB1000 is faster, its "made" for routing. But I'm sure the atom platform could hold its ground. I'd mainly like to see bandwidth tests. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Travis Johnson" Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:09 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom In our bench testing, the RB1000 actually performs very well. You can't just compare CPU's (as I'm sure you know). The RB1000 was designed from the ground up to move packets. The Atom CPU was designed as an inexpensive computer system. I think I have a dual-core 1.6ghz Atom board and CPU (Intel brand of both) and an RB1000. I can run some performance tests... what do you want to see? Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only with 2 FE ports). About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
Marlon, Since when is a -60 too hot of a signal? If you look at the spec sheets for testing on most of the wireless cards, you will see that -60 is their "ideal" signal. Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Change from b to g or g to be mode. Turn your power WAY down. That's way too hot of a signal. Any metal, trees, houses, power lines etc. anywhere near the signal path? This looks a LOT like multipath. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mark McElvy" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
In our bench testing, the RB1000 actually performs very well. You can't just compare CPU's (as I'm sure you know). The RB1000 was designed from the ground up to move packets. The Atom CPU was designed as an inexpensive computer system. I think I have a dual-core 1.6ghz Atom board and CPU (Intel brand of both) and an RB1000. I can run some performance tests... what do you want to see? Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only with 2 FE ports). About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Buffering video.
I wish it was that easy ... When I right click in youtube on the video window (or is that what you meant?) I get a tan box with Settings, and About Adobe Flash Player 10. Settings only sets privacy settings. Do you have something else running? I am running Vista. MIke At 10:28 PM 10/15/2009, you wrote: >On Youtube, right click and change the buffer to infinity. > >You have to do this for each website. *.youtube.com, *.youporn.com >etc... > >ryan > > >On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Mike wrote: > > > How come the Windows video codecs don't buffer before playing? If > > youtube videos stutter, I hear about it. Is there a video buffering > > software you use and recommend? The algorithm to figure out > > buffering would be trivial. I have speedbit installed but am less > > than pleased. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today
I totally disagree with that Nick. Without more spectrum most of these devices will find the environment so noisy that they'll not work well. Also, this looks a lot like a REALLY big meshing system. We have already seen what happens when you get more than a couple of devices deep. And the security problems with this! yowsers. Our roads are similar. Large mesh, open architecture, minimal rules etc. The difference is spectrum. Roads cover a LOT of area. We have the equivalent of a drive way or two worth of spectrum to play with. Either way, it'll be interesting for sure. marlon - Original Message - From: "Nick Olsen" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today Were going to reach the age where the only need for 3G coverage will be on open highways and rural areas. In citys it will get to the point where there is so much wi-fi coverage your device will be able to just hop from one to the next. Thats when your going to run into the noise issue. They will have to find some way to deal with that, That current gear can't do. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "richard sterne" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:22 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today More noise problems. Richard 2009/10/15 Chuck Profito > Internet October 14, 2009, 12:01AM EST > > Wi-Fi Is About to Get a Whole Lot Easier > A consortium that includes Intel, Cisco, and Apple is set to release new > technology called Wi-Fi Direct that will turn a slew of gadgets into > hotspots > > By Olga Kharif > > Going Wi-Fi is about to get a lot easier. For many consumers, setting up > an > in-home Wi-Fi connection point is something of a hassle. Before you can > enjoy the convenience of logging onto the Web without cables and wires, > you > need to hook up some gear and create your own "hotspot." > > But that's set to change come mid-2010, when a tech upgrade will make it > easier for users of consumer electronics to exchange files between > electronic gadgets. > > On Oct. 14, the Wi-Fi Alliance, a tech industry consortium, said its > members > will release technology that effectively turns gadgets into mini access > points, able to create wireless connections with other Wi-Fi-enabled > gadgets > or broadband modems within a radius of about 300 feet. The alliance > includes > Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Apple (AAPL), and more than 300 other > makers of the equipment that runs Wi-Fi networks, often used to provide > wireless Web connections in homes, cafés, hotels, and airports. > Sales Erosion Possible > > The new technology, called Wi-Fi Direct, will be built directly into > consumer electronics and automatically scan the vicinity for existing > hotspots and the gamut of Wi-Fi equipped devices, including phones, > computers, TVs, and gaming consoles. Owners of most existing Wi-Fi-enabled > devices will be able to upgrade to Wi-Fi Direct with a simple software > download. > > While the revamp may make life easier for consumers and business owners, > it > may erode sales of other Wi-Fi compatible equipment. For starters, Wi-Fi > Direct may curb demand for routers and other products that make up the $1 > billion annual market for Wi-Fi access points, now present in about 30% of > U.S. homes. "The IT department doesn't have to set up an access point," > says > Victoria Fodale, a senior analyst at In-Stat. "Same thing in the home. You > can do the same thing with less equipment." Cisco and Netgear (NTGR) are > among the biggest sellers of Wi-Fi equipment. > > The feature also could disrupt usage of wireless Bluetooth technology > that, > for example, helps users of the Apple iPhone play games with each other > outside a wireless network. In the future, some consumers may use Wi-Fi > Direct instead. Though Wi-Fi connectivity tends to drain battery life > faster > than Bluetooth, it's also faster and allows for transfer of richer > multimedia content like video. > Marketing Blitz on the Way > > For Cisco, Wi-Fi Direct could make up for lost sales of Wi-Fi access > points > through other Wi-Fi-enabled equipment including camcorders. The company > didn't make a representative available for this story. > > Members of the Wi-Fi Alliance plan to promote their new technology with a > major marketing blitz. Intel has already begun briefing retailers, who > will > promote the feature in their stores, says Gary Martz, senior product > manager > at Intel. The chipmaker will also heavily promote the capability in the > first quarter of 2010 as it unveils its next-generation Wi-Fi chip package > for computers. > > Chipmaker Marvell (MRVL), meantime, is planning to collaborate with its > consumer-electronics partners to mark enabled devices with special > stickers > and to promote the capability through ads. "We will make a big splash wi
Re: [WISPA] Buffering video.
On Youtube, right click and change the buffer to infinity. You have to do this for each website. *.youtube.com, *.youporn.com etc... ryan On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Mike wrote: > How come the Windows video codecs don't buffer before playing? If > youtube videos stutter, I hear about it. Is there a video buffering > software you use and recommend? The algorithm to figure out > buffering would be trivial. I have speedbit installed but am less > than pleased. > > Mike > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Buffering video.
How come the Windows video codecs don't buffer before playing? If youtube videos stutter, I hear about it. Is there a video buffering software you use and recommend? The algorithm to figure out buffering would be trivial. I have speedbit installed but am less than pleased. Mike WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
That doesn't help But make sure they aren't within 3 or 4 channels of each other, certainly not within two channels. marlon - Original Message - From: "Josh Luthman" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy > That is 2.4 - is there an indoor WiFi router on the other side of the wall > causing interference? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > >> How many subs on the tower? >> >> Is the tower linked to a CPE that is linked to your main tower (poor >> mans repeater?) >> >> ryan >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mark McElvy wrote: >> > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, >> > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't >> > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of >> > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get >> > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my >> > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. >> > >> > >> > >> > Mark McElvy >> > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
Change from b to g or g to be mode. Turn your power WAY down. That's way too hot of a signal. Any metal, trees, houses, power lines etc. anywhere near the signal path? This looks a LOT like multipath. marlon - Original Message - From: "Mark McElvy" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. > > > > Mark McElvy > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Can you track the usage through the system? Not just speed tests from a site. I see overall slowdowns out here from a couple of probable causes. One is, overall usage of the entire band, my systems and those of my competitors. It causes all noise to go up. Another is that some of my customers have really bad installations. Trees in the way, just clearing a hill etc. The kind of things you have to do from time to time if you want to make a go of this business. But now, with more people on the ap's, those customers with their massive retrans rates are causing some real issues on some of my APs. We're adding ap's and working to improve link qualities on as many customers as possible. Good luck to you Al! marlon - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >I know ... there's no easy answer. We have a situation where in the > early morning speeds are in the vicinity of 2000 (2.0 meg), and by > 4:30 in the afternoon, speeds will drop to 1/4 of that. That says to > me that there are a number of people doing pretty steady usage ... > but I could be wrong. There may be other factors. > > Al > > > -- At 09:35 AM 10/15/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- > >>It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. >> >>Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 >>teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. >> >>My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to >>the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, >>remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks >>but >>use less on a consistent basis. >> >>Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business >>customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST >>as >>much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. >> >>Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. >>marlon >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Al Stewart" >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >> >> > Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 >> > meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous >> > connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what >> > point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the >> > bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There >> > has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. >> > >> > We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. >> > >> > Al >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- END QUOTE - > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
> both the adapters on that supermicro are Gig (10/100/1000) Realtek =( Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > My ignorance may be showing, but by 2xFE i assume you mean 2 fast ethernet > adapters ie 10/100 > both the adapters on that supermicro are Gig (10/100/1000) > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "Butch Evans" > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:49 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom > > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > > Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only > > with 2 FE ports). > > About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is > 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT > more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). > > -- > > * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * > * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
My ignorance may be showing, but by 2xFE i assume you mean 2 fast ethernet adapters ie 10/100 both the adapters on that supermicro are Gig (10/100/1000) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Butch Evans" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:49 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only > with 2 FE ports). About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
Atom versus PPC though... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Butch Evans wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > > Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only > > with 2 FE ports). > > About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is > 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT > more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). > > -- > > * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * > * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
Is the AP and Router broadcasting on the same channel? If the CPQ is on the other side of the wall from the router and hearing it on channel 1 at -40 it's tough to hear the AP on channel 1 at -60. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Mark McElvy wrote: > Yes there is an indoor router, but so does every other client I have. > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:36 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy > > That is 2.4 - is there an indoor WiFi router on the other side of the > wall > causing interference? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > > > How many subs on the tower? > > > > Is the tower linked to a CPE that is linked to your main tower (poor > > mans repeater?) > > > > ryan > > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mark McElvy > wrote: > > > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal > up/dn, > > > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and > can't > > > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of > > > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will > get > > > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my > > > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark McElvy > > > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:10 -0600, Travis Johnson wrote: > Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only > with 2 FE ports). About the equivalent of the rb1000? You gotta be kidding! RB1000 is 1.3GHz SINGLE CORE cpu. That one is 1.6GHz Dual-core. It'll be a LOT more different than just the 2XFE (vs 4XGig). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Which routers/brands are you referring to? And what do you consider the good brands? Al -- At 06:45 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, RickG wrote: --- >Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off >the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% >throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other >issues such as disconnects, etc. >-RickG > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > This could be a very touchy topic. > > Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there > > problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your > > location or your ISP's its inevitable. > > But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact > > that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't > > doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy > > on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers > > don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they > > remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > > > > As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of > > speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know > > back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan > > to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down > > under the 10Mb/s mark. > > I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and > > its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the > > standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "Al Stewart" > > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Thanks ... this helps. > > > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > > at least what the > > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > > ALL the routers in the system. > > > > Al > > > > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >>address those conditions. > >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > > and/or > >>lots of uploads. > >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing > > to > >>be up or down during the congestion time. > >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because > > its > >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > > Therfore > >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited > > amount > >>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >> > >>We took a two prong approach to fix. > >> > >>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set > > to > >>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to > > have > >>a time slice for uploading. > >> > >>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every > > users > >>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >> > >>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >> > >>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >>really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >>service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively > > to > >>most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >>mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb > >>plans. > >> > >> But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is > > reached > >>packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end > > user, > >>because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also > >>learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to > > slower > >>speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
Yes there is an indoor router, but so does every other client I have. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy That is 2.4 - is there an indoor WiFi router on the other side of the wall causing interference? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > How many subs on the tower? > > Is the tower linked to a CPE that is linked to your main tower (poor > mans repeater?) > > ryan > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mark McElvy wrote: > > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, > > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't > > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of > > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get > > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my > > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. > > > > > > > > Mark McElvy > > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
About a dozen on this sector. No -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy How many subs on the tower? Is the tower linked to a CPE that is linked to your main tower (poor mans repeater?) ryan On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mark McElvy wrote: > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. > > > > Mark McElvy > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Just had a weird one today. Custom said he had a "higher business class Linksys" and the dhcp lease passed my NAT'ed SM as the DNS server. Couldn't resolve DNS. Plugged into the PC into SM and asking the same IP for DNS it works. On 10/15/09, RickG wrote: > Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off > the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% > throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other > issues such as disconnects, etc. > -RickG > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen > wrote: >> This could be a very touchy topic. >> Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >> problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At >> your >> location or your ISP's its inevitable. >> But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >> that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >> doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >> on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >> don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >> remove the router and it all works great suddenly. >> >> As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >> speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I >> know >> back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on >> wan >> to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >> under the 10Mb/s mark. >> I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >> its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >> standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) >> >> Nick Olsen >> Brevard Wireless >> (321) 205-1100 x106 >> >> >> >> >> From: "Al Stewart" >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >> Thanks ... this helps. >> >> One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >> wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >> be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >> at least what the >> nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >> for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >> course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >> ALL the routers in the system. >> >> Al >> >> -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >> >>>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >>>address those conditions. >>>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >> and/or >>>lots of uploads. >>>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >>>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >>>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >>>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >>>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >> to >>>be up or down during the congestion time. >>>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >> its >>>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >>>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >> Therfore >>>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >> amount >>>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. >>> >>>We took a two prong approach to fix. >>> >>>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >> to >>>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >>>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >> have >>>a time slice for uploading. >>> >>>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >> users >>>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. >>> >>>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. >>> >>>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >>>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >>>really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >>>service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively >> to >>>most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >>>mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >>>plans. >>> >>> But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is >> reached >>>packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end >> user, >>>because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >>>learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to >> slower >>>speeds. We also learned avoid having speed
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other issues such as disconnects, etc. -RickG On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > This could be a very touchy topic. > Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there > problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your > location or your ISP's its inevitable. > But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact > that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't > doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy > on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers > don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they > remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > > As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of > speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know > back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan > to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down > under the 10Mb/s mark. > I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and > its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the > standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "Al Stewart" > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > Thanks ... this helps. > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > at least what the > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > ALL the routers in the system. > > Al > > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >>address those conditions. >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > and/or >>lots of uploads. >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing > to >>be up or down during the congestion time. >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because > its >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > Therfore >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited > amount >>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. >> >>We took a two prong approach to fix. >> >>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set > to >>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to > have >>a time slice for uploading. >> >>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every > users >>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. >> >>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. >> >>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >>really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >>service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively > to >>most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >>mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >>plans. >> >> But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is > reached >>packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end > user, >>because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >>learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to > slower >>speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of > the >>radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. >> >>VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing > video, >>it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if >>someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets >>discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. >> >>Tom DeReggi >>Rapi
Re: [WISPA] billable fee schedule
Ya, that may be the way to go. What are you paying per hour? On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Scott Reed wrote: > Have you considered per hour rates with a minimum trip charge to the > customer? > We do a flat rate install charge and pay the installer a flat rate. > Repairs are done per hour, usually minimum 15 minutes charging the > customer 50% more than we pay the repair person. > > RickG wrote: >> Some of the rates I posted assumed the installer was already on site >> for an installation. I'm just need to consider trouble calls so I >> revised the schedule below. I used to give $25 per service call but >> the problem I ran into was that they would go out to a customer's find >> nothing or perhaps something simple such as a loose cable, then they >> get paid for doing little or nothing. At that point, I'd rather do it >> myself and keep the money. You may have a point about paying mileage >> or a separate truck roll fee. Either way, I have guys more than >> willing to do it for the amounts below but I truly dont want to take >> advantage of anyone which is why I'm asking. A flat "one size fits >> all" rate doesnt seem fair to the company so I'm trying to come up >> with a more specific rate schedule based on the expected time to do >> the job. >> >> $30 -- Service call to replace ethernet cable on customer's premises >> (normal run). >> $20 -- Service call to replace radio/antenna performed on site at >> customer's premises. >> $10 -- Service call to replace POE, and/or power supply performed on >> site at customer's premises. >> $10 -- Uninstall canceled customer (remove radio and mount). >> $10 -- Site survey performed on site at prospective customer's premises. >> $5 -- NTF. i.e. reset radio/router. Note: May be billable to customer! >> $5 -- Extended area trip fee (Within KyWiFi service area but outside of >> Montgomery County). >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.17/2436 - Release Date: 10/14/09 >> 18:32:00 >> >> > > -- > Scott Reed > Sr. Systems Engineer > GAB Midwest > 1-800-363-1544 x4000 > Cell: 260-273-7239 > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
That is 2.4 - is there an indoor WiFi router on the other side of the wall causing interference? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Spott wrote: > How many subs on the tower? > > Is the tower linked to a CPE that is linked to your main tower (poor > mans repeater?) > > ryan > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mark McElvy wrote: > > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, > > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't > > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of > > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get > > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my > > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. > > > > > > > > Mark McElvy > > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
How many subs on the tower? Is the tower linked to a CPE that is linked to your main tower (poor mans repeater?) ryan On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Mark McElvy wrote: > Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, > -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't > browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of > acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get > very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my > knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. > > > > Mark McElvy > AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] New install driving me crazy....
Installing a new customer, Tranzeo CPQ-19 to a MT AP, -60 signal up/dn, -102 noise. About half the time I don't get name resolution and can't browse pages. This happens with two different radios. It is kind of acting like I am loosing routing or something. I also notice I will get very high ping times sporadically along with drop pings. Best of my knowledge no one else having issue on this AP, about a dozen users. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Looking for 2450 Advantage AP
We're doing a build-out here soon and looking for 2-2450 Motorola Advantage Access points. I thought I'd ask here, if anyone had a couple they wanted to get rid of. I like to keep business between other ISPs before I hit the vendors. Let me know! WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Depends on which one. I use to use a DGL-4300 one of there "Gaming" routers. And it would do about 80Mb/s Wan to Lan. Most of the new routers today are pretty well off. They still don't handle P2P all that well. But are way better then they were like 1 year ago. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Al Stewart" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- >This could be a very touchy topic. >Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your >location or your ISP's its inevitable. >But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > >As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know >back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan >to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >under the 10Mb/s mark. >I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > >Nick Olsen >Brevard Wireless >(321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > >From: "Al Stewart" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >To: "WISPA General List" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Thanks ... this helps. > >One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >at least what the >nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >ALL the routers in the system. > >Al > >-- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >address those conditions. > >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >and/or > >lots of uploads. > >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >to > >be up or down during the congestion time. > >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >its > >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >Therfore > >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >amount > >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > > > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > > > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >to > >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >have > >a time slice for uploading. > > > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >users > >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > > > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > > > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively >to > >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb > >plans. > > > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is >reached > >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end >user, > >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also > >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to >slower > >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of >the > >rad
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
Oh I understand that its a barebone system, so it needs ram and storage. Realtek nics, I don't really have a comment on. I love the intel pro/1000GT's (not realtek, i know), and haven't had much seat time with a set of realtek's. And supermicro stuff is always good. They are bigger in the rackmount/server side of the market. I've worked with a lot of it and its always bulletproof. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Josh Luthman" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:07 PM To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom It's x86 so it should work. Doesn't have RAM, you'll need to buy that. It has Realtek NICs. Worst things in the world. Linux hates them especially. However much faith you want to put in "SuperMicro" is up to you - I have no experience. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: Has anyone tried Mikrotik on a atom board? I noticed this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101262 I think this would make a decent router for the price. Your thoughts? Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
Yes, that unit would work well for a small MT router. Probably about the equivalent of the RB1000 (but only with 2 FE ports). Travis Microserv Nick Olsen wrote: > Has anyone tried Mikrotik on a atom board? > > I noticed this > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101262 > I think this would make a decent router for the price. > Your thoughts? > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- >This could be a very touchy topic. >Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your >location or your ISP's its inevitable. >But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > >As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know >back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan >to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >under the 10Mb/s mark. >I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > >Nick Olsen >Brevard Wireless >(321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > >From: "Al Stewart" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >To: "WISPA General List" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Thanks ... this helps. > >One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >at least what the >nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >ALL the routers in the system. > >Al > >-- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >address those conditions. > >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >and/or > >lots of uploads. > >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >to > >be up or down during the congestion time. > >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >its > >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >Therfore > >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >amount > >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > > > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > > > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >to > >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >have > >a time slice for uploading. > > > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >users > >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > > > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > > > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively >to > >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb > >plans. > > > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is >reached > >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end >user, > >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also > >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to >slower > >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of >the > >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > > > >VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing >video, > >it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if > >someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets > >discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > > > >Tom DeReggi > >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Al Stewart" > >To: "WISPA General List" > >Sent: Thursday, October 15,
Re: [WISPA] MT on Atom
It's x86 so it should work. Doesn't have RAM, you'll need to buy that. It has Realtek NICs. Worst things in the world. Linux hates them especially. However much faith you want to put in "SuperMicro" is up to you - I have no experience. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > Has anyone tried Mikrotik on a atom board? > > I noticed this > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101262 > I think this would make a decent router for the price. > Your thoughts? > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
There is no power control. We are working on adding that feature sometime in the future. Need to add some additional intelligence to the switch to handle the interface. Regards, Scott -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Randy Cosby Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC Hi Scott, Looks like another useful product. Can you turn the power on / off for individual ports (remote reboot)? Randy On 10/15/2009 10:36 AM, Scott Parsons wrote: > Hi Arnold, > Not sure where you got your information about the TP-SW5-NC. Some > distributors are a little slow to update their websites? > They are in stock and shipping. We can ship today. > Have 24V and 48V versions of non-compliant switch and 48V version of 802.3af > compliant switches. > Call me at 801-432-0003 if you would like to buy direct. > > Regards, > Scott Parsons > Tycon Power Systems > 801-432-0003 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Arnold Cavazos Jr. > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:00 AM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC > > > It appears that these things are still not shipping... Does anybody > have a good alternative solution? > > I have a 450' ethernet run that I need to split into two 225' runs. I > need to run some sort of PoE switching device to the half way point to > keep the two ethernet runs down to less than 328'. The device on the > end of this long run is passive PoE (non 802.3af) that needs a minimum > of 18vdc and a maximum of 30vdc. > > --- > Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:45:02PM -0500, Arnold Cavazos Jr. wrote: > >> Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in >> stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... >> >> -- >> Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> > > > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] MT on Atom
Has anyone tried Mikrotik on a atom board? I noticed this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101262 I think this would make a decent router for the price. Your thoughts? Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
This could be a very touchy topic. Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your location or your ISP's its inevitable. But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they remove the router and it all works great suddenly. As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down under the 10Mb/s mark. I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Al Stewart" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >address those conditions. >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or >lots of uploads. >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to >be up or down during the congestion time. >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have >a time slice for uploading. > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >plans. > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > >VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, >it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if >someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets >discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > > or 20 of them are all connected and using for down
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >address those conditions. >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or >lots of uploads. >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to >be up or down during the congestion time. >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have >a time slice for uploading. > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >plans. > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > >VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, >it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if >someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets >discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > > or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc > > at the same time? > > > > Al > > > > -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- > > > >>At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be > >>better. > >> > >>Chris Cooper > >>Intelliwave > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >>Behalf Of Al Stewart > >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM > >>To: WISPA General List > >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >> > >>Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > >>meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > >>connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > >>point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > >>bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > >>has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > >> > >>We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > >> > >>Al > >> > >> -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireles
Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
Hi Scott, Looks like another useful product. Can you turn the power on / off for individual ports (remote reboot)? Randy On 10/15/2009 10:36 AM, Scott Parsons wrote: > Hi Arnold, > Not sure where you got your information about the TP-SW5-NC. Some > distributors are a little slow to update their websites? > They are in stock and shipping. We can ship today. > Have 24V and 48V versions of non-compliant switch and 48V version of 802.3af > compliant switches. > Call me at 801-432-0003 if you would like to buy direct. > > Regards, > Scott Parsons > Tycon Power Systems > 801-432-0003 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Arnold Cavazos Jr. > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:00 AM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC > > > It appears that these things are still not shipping... Does anybody > have a good alternative solution? > > I have a 450' ethernet run that I need to split into two 225' runs. I > need to run some sort of PoE switching device to the half way point to > keep the two ethernet runs down to less than 328'. The device on the > end of this long run is passive PoE (non 802.3af) that needs a minimum > of 18vdc and a maximum of 30vdc. > > --- > Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:45:02PM -0500, Arnold Cavazos Jr. wrote: > >> Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in >> stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... >> >> -- >> Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> > > > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth his going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc > at the same time? > > Al > > -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- > >>At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be >>better. >> >>Chris Cooper >>Intelliwave >> >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Al Stewart >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >>Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 >>meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous >>connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what >>point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the >>bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There >>has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. >> >>We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. >> >>Al >> >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- END QUOTE - > - > Al Stewart > stewa...@westcreston.ca > - > > > > --
Re: [WISPA] Competitor at -40
I'll second the talk to the competitor. This business is much more do-able if we work together. In a lot of cases I've seen, it was not malicious, just ignorance that was causing the problem. Marco On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM, RickG wrote: > Before starting a war, go meet with them and see if you can get it > worked out. -RickG > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: >> Fight fire with fire? >> Find what freq hes using and put to radios on that freq 40mhz turbo and >> constantly bandwidth test between them? >> >> Nick Olsen >> Brevard Wireless >> (321) 205-1100 x106 >> >> >> >> >> From: "Mike" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:02 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Competitor at -40 >> >> Nice. Put a better dish, with better side lobe and rear lobe specs to >> use. I have also shielded a dish from the rear with a ground >> screen. Stainless mesh hung behind the dish and grounded to the >> tower/mount. There is probably RF reflecting all over the place with >> that level of signal. It might not be "amped" either if it is >> close. You need more than luck. Best Wishes! >> >> At 01:41 PM 10/13/2009, you wrote: >>>Gotta love it. Picking up another wisps overamped Omni at -40 with a >>>16dbi panel, pointed *away* from them. I thought this was supposed to >>>be a fun job? >>> >>> >>>--- >> - >>>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>--- >> - >>> >>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
I know ... there's no easy answer. We have a situation where in the early morning speeds are in the vicinity of 2000 (2.0 meg), and by 4:30 in the afternoon, speeds will drop to 1/4 of that. That says to me that there are a number of people doing pretty steady usage ... but I could be wrong. There may be other factors. Al -- At 09:35 AM 10/15/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- >It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. > >Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 >teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. > >My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to >the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, >remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks but >use less on a consistent basis. > >Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business >customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST as >much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. > >Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. >marlon > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM >Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > > meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > > connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > > point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > > bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > > has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > > > > We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > > > > Al > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
Hi Arnold, Not sure where you got your information about the TP-SW5-NC. Some distributors are a little slow to update their websites? They are in stock and shipping. We can ship today. Have 24V and 48V versions of non-compliant switch and 48V version of 802.3af compliant switches. Call me at 801-432-0003 if you would like to buy direct. Regards, Scott Parsons Tycon Power Systems 801-432-0003 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Arnold Cavazos Jr. Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:00 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC It appears that these things are still not shipping... Does anybody have a good alternative solution? I have a 450' ethernet run that I need to split into two 225' runs. I need to run some sort of PoE switching device to the half way point to keep the two ethernet runs down to less than 328'. The device on the end of this long run is passive PoE (non 802.3af) that needs a minimum of 18vdc and a maximum of 30vdc. --- Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:45:02PM -0500, Arnold Cavazos Jr. wrote: > Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in > stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... > > -- > Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks but use less on a consistent basis. Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST as much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. marlon - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > > We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > > Al > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today
Were going to reach the age where the only need for 3G coverage will be on open highways and rural areas. In citys it will get to the point where there is so much wi-fi coverage your device will be able to just hop from one to the next. Thats when your going to run into the noise issue. They will have to find some way to deal with that, That current gear can't do. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "richard sterne" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:22 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today More noise problems. Richard 2009/10/15 Chuck Profito > Internet October 14, 2009, 12:01AM EST > > Wi-Fi Is About to Get a Whole Lot Easier > A consortium that includes Intel, Cisco, and Apple is set to release new > technology called Wi-Fi Direct that will turn a slew of gadgets into > hotspots > > By Olga Kharif > > Going Wi-Fi is about to get a lot easier. For many consumers, setting up an > in-home Wi-Fi connection point is something of a hassle. Before you can > enjoy the convenience of logging onto the Web without cables and wires, you > need to hook up some gear and create your own "hotspot." > > But that's set to change come mid-2010, when a tech upgrade will make it > easier for users of consumer electronics to exchange files between > electronic gadgets. > > On Oct. 14, the Wi-Fi Alliance, a tech industry consortium, said its > members > will release technology that effectively turns gadgets into mini access > points, able to create wireless connections with other Wi-Fi-enabled > gadgets > or broadband modems within a radius of about 300 feet. The alliance > includes > Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Apple (AAPL), and more than 300 other > makers of the equipment that runs Wi-Fi networks, often used to provide > wireless Web connections in homes, cafés, hotels, and airports. > Sales Erosion Possible > > The new technology, called Wi-Fi Direct, will be built directly into > consumer electronics and automatically scan the vicinity for existing > hotspots and the gamut of Wi-Fi equipped devices, including phones, > computers, TVs, and gaming consoles. Owners of most existing Wi-Fi-enabled > devices will be able to upgrade to Wi-Fi Direct with a simple software > download. > > While the revamp may make life easier for consumers and business owners, it > may erode sales of other Wi-Fi compatible equipment. For starters, Wi-Fi > Direct may curb demand for routers and other products that make up the $1 > billion annual market for Wi-Fi access points, now present in about 30% of > U.S. homes. "The IT department doesn't have to set up an access point," > says > Victoria Fodale, a senior analyst at In-Stat. "Same thing in the home. You > can do the same thing with less equipment." Cisco and Netgear (NTGR) are > among the biggest sellers of Wi-Fi equipment. > > The feature also could disrupt usage of wireless Bluetooth technology that, > for example, helps users of the Apple iPhone play games with each other > outside a wireless network. In the future, some consumers may use Wi-Fi > Direct instead. Though Wi-Fi connectivity tends to drain battery life > faster > than Bluetooth, it's also faster and allows for transfer of richer > multimedia content like video. > Marketing Blitz on the Way > > For Cisco, Wi-Fi Direct could make up for lost sales of Wi-Fi access points > through other Wi-Fi-enabled equipment including camcorders. The company > didn't make a representative available for this story. > > Members of the Wi-Fi Alliance plan to promote their new technology with a > major marketing blitz. Intel has already begun briefing retailers, who will > promote the feature in their stores, says Gary Martz, senior product > manager > at Intel. The chipmaker will also heavily promote the capability in the > first quarter of 2010 as it unveils its next-generation Wi-Fi chip package > for computers. > > Chipmaker Marvell (MRVL), meantime, is planning to collaborate with its > consumer-electronics partners to mark enabled devices with special stickers > and to promote the capability through ads. "We will make a big splash with > Wi-Fi Direct," says Bart Giordano, product marketing manager at Marvell. > A Boon for Smartphones > > Almost half of the 760 North American consumers surveyed in May by In-Stat > said they use their Wi-Fi-enabled devices for more than connecting to the > Internet. "We feel that it opens up a whole new set of applications and use > cases," Giordano says. "Wi-Fi Direct will really drive the next generation > of growth in [the use of Wi-Fi] consumer devices." > > The feature could boost usage of Wi-Fi capabilities in smartphones and > television sets in particular. "It makes adding Wi-Fi to devices that don't > have Wi-Fi more compelling," says Kelly Davis-Felner, marketing director at > Wi-Fi Alliance. Marvell is already talking to makers of TVs, few of whom > offer Wi-Fi connectiv
Re: [WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today
More noise problems. Richard 2009/10/15 Chuck Profito > Internet October 14, 2009, 12:01AM EST > > Wi-Fi Is About to Get a Whole Lot Easier > A consortium that includes Intel, Cisco, and Apple is set to release new > technology called Wi-Fi Direct that will turn a slew of gadgets into > hotspots > > By Olga Kharif > > Going Wi-Fi is about to get a lot easier. For many consumers, setting up an > in-home Wi-Fi connection point is something of a hassle. Before you can > enjoy the convenience of logging onto the Web without cables and wires, you > need to hook up some gear and create your own "hotspot." > > But that's set to change come mid-2010, when a tech upgrade will make it > easier for users of consumer electronics to exchange files between > electronic gadgets. > > On Oct. 14, the Wi-Fi Alliance, a tech industry consortium, said its > members > will release technology that effectively turns gadgets into mini access > points, able to create wireless connections with other Wi-Fi-enabled > gadgets > or broadband modems within a radius of about 300 feet. The alliance > includes > Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Apple (AAPL), and more than 300 other > makers of the equipment that runs Wi-Fi networks, often used to provide > wireless Web connections in homes, cafés, hotels, and airports. > Sales Erosion Possible > > The new technology, called Wi-Fi Direct, will be built directly into > consumer electronics and automatically scan the vicinity for existing > hotspots and the gamut of Wi-Fi equipped devices, including phones, > computers, TVs, and gaming consoles. Owners of most existing Wi-Fi-enabled > devices will be able to upgrade to Wi-Fi Direct with a simple software > download. > > While the revamp may make life easier for consumers and business owners, it > may erode sales of other Wi-Fi compatible equipment. For starters, Wi-Fi > Direct may curb demand for routers and other products that make up the $1 > billion annual market for Wi-Fi access points, now present in about 30% of > U.S. homes. "The IT department doesn't have to set up an access point," > says > Victoria Fodale, a senior analyst at In-Stat. "Same thing in the home. You > can do the same thing with less equipment." Cisco and Netgear (NTGR) are > among the biggest sellers of Wi-Fi equipment. > > The feature also could disrupt usage of wireless Bluetooth technology that, > for example, helps users of the Apple iPhone play games with each other > outside a wireless network. In the future, some consumers may use Wi-Fi > Direct instead. Though Wi-Fi connectivity tends to drain battery life > faster > than Bluetooth, it's also faster and allows for transfer of richer > multimedia content like video. > Marketing Blitz on the Way > > For Cisco, Wi-Fi Direct could make up for lost sales of Wi-Fi access points > through other Wi-Fi-enabled equipment including camcorders. The company > didn’t make a representative available for this story. > > Members of the Wi-Fi Alliance plan to promote their new technology with a > major marketing blitz. Intel has already begun briefing retailers, who will > promote the feature in their stores, says Gary Martz, senior product > manager > at Intel. The chipmaker will also heavily promote the capability in the > first quarter of 2010 as it unveils its next-generation Wi-Fi chip package > for computers. > > Chipmaker Marvell (MRVL), meantime, is planning to collaborate with its > consumer-electronics partners to mark enabled devices with special stickers > and to promote the capability through ads. "We will make a big splash with > Wi-Fi Direct," says Bart Giordano, product marketing manager at Marvell. > A Boon for Smartphones > > Almost half of the 760 North American consumers surveyed in May by In-Stat > said they use their Wi-Fi-enabled devices for more than connecting to the > Internet. "We feel that it opens up a whole new set of applications and use > cases," Giordano says. "Wi-Fi Direct will really drive the next generation > of growth in [the use of Wi-Fi] consumer devices." > > The feature could boost usage of Wi-Fi capabilities in smartphones and > television sets in particular. "It makes adding Wi-Fi to devices that don't > have Wi-Fi more compelling," says Kelly Davis-Felner, marketing director at > Wi-Fi Alliance. Marvell is already talking to makers of TVs, few of whom > offer Wi-Fi connectivity today but are now considering adding the > capability > to let users wirelessly transfer photos and video from their Wi-Fi-enabled > cameras, camcorders, and netbooks directly onto TV screens. > > There's also growing interest from manufacturers of cheaper cell phones, > Giordano says. Today, Wi-Fi can be found mostly on high-end smartphone > models. "The new use cases are really going to allow the technology to > proliferate among devices it's not been considered for," Giordano says. "We > are expecting that this will drive a lot of growth for us." Worldwide, > shipments of Wi-Fi-enabled cell phones sho
[WISPA] new wi fi??? From BusinessWeek today
Internet October 14, 2009, 12:01AM EST Wi-Fi Is About to Get a Whole Lot Easier A consortium that includes Intel, Cisco, and Apple is set to release new technology called Wi-Fi Direct that will turn a slew of gadgets into hotspots By Olga Kharif Going Wi-Fi is about to get a lot easier. For many consumers, setting up an in-home Wi-Fi connection point is something of a hassle. Before you can enjoy the convenience of logging onto the Web without cables and wires, you need to hook up some gear and create your own "hotspot." But that's set to change come mid-2010, when a tech upgrade will make it easier for users of consumer electronics to exchange files between electronic gadgets. On Oct. 14, the Wi-Fi Alliance, a tech industry consortium, said its members will release technology that effectively turns gadgets into mini access points, able to create wireless connections with other Wi-Fi-enabled gadgets or broadband modems within a radius of about 300 feet. The alliance includes Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Apple (AAPL), and more than 300 other makers of the equipment that runs Wi-Fi networks, often used to provide wireless Web connections in homes, cafés, hotels, and airports. Sales Erosion Possible The new technology, called Wi-Fi Direct, will be built directly into consumer electronics and automatically scan the vicinity for existing hotspots and the gamut of Wi-Fi equipped devices, including phones, computers, TVs, and gaming consoles. Owners of most existing Wi-Fi-enabled devices will be able to upgrade to Wi-Fi Direct with a simple software download. While the revamp may make life easier for consumers and business owners, it may erode sales of other Wi-Fi compatible equipment. For starters, Wi-Fi Direct may curb demand for routers and other products that make up the $1 billion annual market for Wi-Fi access points, now present in about 30% of U.S. homes. "The IT department doesn't have to set up an access point," says Victoria Fodale, a senior analyst at In-Stat. "Same thing in the home. You can do the same thing with less equipment." Cisco and Netgear (NTGR) are among the biggest sellers of Wi-Fi equipment. The feature also could disrupt usage of wireless Bluetooth technology that, for example, helps users of the Apple iPhone play games with each other outside a wireless network. In the future, some consumers may use Wi-Fi Direct instead. Though Wi-Fi connectivity tends to drain battery life faster than Bluetooth, it's also faster and allows for transfer of richer multimedia content like video. Marketing Blitz on the Way For Cisco, Wi-Fi Direct could make up for lost sales of Wi-Fi access points through other Wi-Fi-enabled equipment including camcorders. The company didnt make a representative available for this story. Members of the Wi-Fi Alliance plan to promote their new technology with a major marketing blitz. Intel has already begun briefing retailers, who will promote the feature in their stores, says Gary Martz, senior product manager at Intel. The chipmaker will also heavily promote the capability in the first quarter of 2010 as it unveils its next-generation Wi-Fi chip package for computers. Chipmaker Marvell (MRVL), meantime, is planning to collaborate with its consumer-electronics partners to mark enabled devices with special stickers and to promote the capability through ads. "We will make a big splash with Wi-Fi Direct," says Bart Giordano, product marketing manager at Marvell. A Boon for Smartphones Almost half of the 760 North American consumers surveyed in May by In-Stat said they use their Wi-Fi-enabled devices for more than connecting to the Internet. "We feel that it opens up a whole new set of applications and use cases," Giordano says. "Wi-Fi Direct will really drive the next generation of growth in [the use of Wi-Fi] consumer devices." The feature could boost usage of Wi-Fi capabilities in smartphones and television sets in particular. "It makes adding Wi-Fi to devices that don't have Wi-Fi more compelling," says Kelly Davis-Felner, marketing director at Wi-Fi Alliance. Marvell is already talking to makers of TVs, few of whom offer Wi-Fi connectivity today but are now considering adding the capability to let users wirelessly transfer photos and video from their Wi-Fi-enabled cameras, camcorders, and netbooks directly onto TV screens. There's also growing interest from manufacturers of cheaper cell phones, Giordano says. Today, Wi-Fi can be found mostly on high-end smartphone models. "The new use cases are really going to allow the technology to proliferate among devices it's not been considered for," Giordano says. "We are expecting that this will drive a lot of growth for us." Worldwide, shipments of Wi-Fi-enabled cell phones should rise from 64.9 million units last year to 314 million units in 2013, according to consultant IDC. "This technology is going to be ubiquitous in every notebook and netbook in 12 to 18 months; it's going to be a very fast ramp," Ma
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc at the same time? Al -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- >At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be >better. > >Chris Cooper >Intelliwave > >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Al Stewart >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 >meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous >connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what >point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the >bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There >has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > >We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > >Al > > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be better. Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tycon TP-SW5--NC
It appears that these things are still not shipping... Does anybody have a good alternative solution? I have a 450' ethernet run that I need to split into two 225' runs. I need to run some sort of PoE switching device to the half way point to keep the two ethernet runs down to less than 328'. The device on the end of this long run is passive PoE (non 802.3af) that needs a minimum of 18vdc and a maximum of 30vdc. --- Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:45:02PM -0500, Arnold Cavazos Jr. wrote: > Does anybody know were I can find a TP-SW5--NC with 24v power supply in > stock? My procurement guy is having a hard time finding one... > > -- > Arnold Cavazos, Jr. abcjr at abcjr . net > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] billable fee schedule
Have you considered per hour rates with a minimum trip charge to the customer? We do a flat rate install charge and pay the installer a flat rate. Repairs are done per hour, usually minimum 15 minutes charging the customer 50% more than we pay the repair person. RickG wrote: > Some of the rates I posted assumed the installer was already on site > for an installation. I'm just need to consider trouble calls so I > revised the schedule below. I used to give $25 per service call but > the problem I ran into was that they would go out to a customer's find > nothing or perhaps something simple such as a loose cable, then they > get paid for doing little or nothing. At that point, I'd rather do it > myself and keep the money. You may have a point about paying mileage > or a separate truck roll fee. Either way, I have guys more than > willing to do it for the amounts below but I truly dont want to take > advantage of anyone which is why I'm asking. A flat "one size fits > all" rate doesnt seem fair to the company so I'm trying to come up > with a more specific rate schedule based on the expected time to do > the job. > > $30 -- Service call to replace ethernet cable on customer's premises > (normal run). > $20 -- Service call to replace radio/antenna performed on site at > customer's premises. > $10 -- Service call to replace POE, and/or power supply performed on > site at customer's premises. > $10 -- Uninstall canceled customer (remove radio and mount). > $10 -- Site survey performed on site at prospective customer's premises. > $5 -- NTF. i.e. reset radio/router. Note: May be billable to customer! > $5 -- Extended area trip fee (Within KyWiFi service area but outside of > Montgomery County). > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.17/2436 - Release Date: 10/14/09 > 18:32:00 > > -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
