Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

[Tom DeReggi]

Let me give you an example of Firmware voodoo...

Noise detected for link was like nothing on numerous channels... Started 
with Firm 5.4.1 link acting weird. So downgraded to 5.3.3.
Rocket GPS on one side, Rocket on other. Couldn't downgrade lower, because 
Rocket-GPS wont allow it.
Embedded speed testshows... RCV 27mbps, TX 21mbps, SimutanousBoth TX 1.5mb, 
RCV 19mbps. Something wrong.
Link should be able to do full MCS7 Modulation, but only getting 39mb 
modulation (MCS4). Couldn't find any way to cure..
Upgrade to 5.4.1, and the throughput becomes symetrical. In a symetrical 
(simultaneous both) test, I get TX 15mbps, and RCV 15mbps.
Problem solved, to get even consistent throughput. (note: Airmax on, Airsync 
off).  Why only getting MCS4 undetermiend.

In this case, I'm theorizing the possible cause One side has a dual pol, 
and the second side has a single pole. Nrmally if this ever occured, we'd 
cap off the unused port on the single pol side, but in this case we did not. 
When we climbed we ran into a problem, where we could not get teh dual pol 
antenna up the tower, with the number of people and supllies we had on site 
at the time. Because isntall tiem was urgent, we decided to instead use a 
pre-installed antenna altready up the tower, but it was only single pol. 
Our plan was that we'd replace the Feed to Dual pol, in a few weeks, on the 
next climb.  We already had a cable waterproofed taped to the radio, since 
we pre-planned for Dual pol. But I did not have a cap handy.  So I left the 
second chain cable, hanging, and waterproof taped up, temporarilly. 
Unfortunately, with UBNT, there is no way to stop transmitting on the second 
chain. The cable end will spew noise at no polarity, since an antenna is not 
attached, thus there is no cross polarity isolation from the first chain.  I 
think what is happening is the TX signal from the unused secondary chain is 
self-interfering with the first chain, and because of this the lower SNR 
only allows the first chain to transmit at a max of MCS4.  This is my 
theory, but I wont know for sure, until we climb in a week to two.

But my point here is, which firmware made a huge difference in what results 
we could get, until fixed.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Stuart Pierce" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput


> Have you tried to not use auto for ack and set the ack for 1.5
> times the distance ?
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: Mike Hammett 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:38:39 -0500
>
>>I haven't deployed any Rocket PtP links with less than 55
> signal.
>>
>>Have you followed UBNT's best practices guide?
>>http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/Best%20Practices.pdf
>>
>>Next step, hit up their forum or their support. Matt at UBNT
> worked some
>>magic on one of my links and it has been solid ever since.
>>
>>-
>>Mike Hammett
>>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>>On 10/24/2011 4:52 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about
> 30mbps.  My
>>> signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -
> 85+).
>>> ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is
> approx
>>> 1.5mi).  cable not an issue.  any thoughts?
>>>
>>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
> boun...@wispa.org]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
>>> *To:* WISPA General List
>>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>>
>>> You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK
>>> distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third
> party
>>> factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant
> generate
>>> that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers.
>>>
>>> The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and
> see if the
>>> speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops
> proportionally. I
>>> bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better.
>>>
>>> Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not
> mean you
>>> have a clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port
> is limited
>>> to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to
>>> distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to
> PC,
>>> isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is very rare to find
> 40Mhz of
>>> clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest
> packet loss
>>> and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>
>>> *From:*Patrick D. Nix, Jr
> 
>>>
>>> *To:*WISPA General List 
>>>
>>> *Sent:*Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM
>>>
>>>

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote:

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net 
Neutrality does not apply to you.   You paid for it, you can do what 
you want with it.


Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true.

The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common 
carriers unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content.


However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be 
overturned by a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal.  In fact, 
I think the FCC expected that to be the result when they wrote 
it.  Politics is funny like that.  Congress and the states pass laws 
which they know will be overturned, and the FCC follows their lead.


The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: "We hate the FCC") got the 
case raises the odds even more.



Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Tony Iacopi wrote:

Hi there,

Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality 
rules are back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone 
done anything regarding this, we are working on it but would like 
to know what others are doing.  Let me know.


Thanks

Tony Iacopi
831-902-0700
t...@razzolink.com







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/


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


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] Net Neutrality

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality 
does not apply to you.   You paid for it, you can do what you want with it.


Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Tony Iacopi wrote:


Hi there,


Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality 
rules are back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone done 
anything regarding this, we are working on it but would like to know 
what others are doing.  Let me know.


Thanks

Tony Iacopi

831-902-0700

t...@razzolink.com





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] Net Neutrality

[Tony Iacopi]

Hi there,


Just got off the phone with my FCC attorney and the Net Neutrality rules are
back on and we are to comply by Nov. 20th.  Has anyone done anything
regarding this, we are working on it but would like to know what others are
doing.  Let me know.

 

Thanks

 

Tony Iacopi

831-902-0700

t...@razzolink.com

 




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] Fiber Termination Kit

[Philip Dorr]

We currently use AMP Lightcrimp Plus, but are looking at using Belden
FiberExpress Brilliance in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQtiUTY-6zs
http://www.graybar.com/documents/belden-fiberexpress-installation-guide.pdf

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Matt  wrote:
> We are looking to trench some fiber to a new tower a few hundred foot
> away.  Was wandering how cost effective to cut and terminate our own
> fiber for this would be?  Its close enough for cat-6 to reach but was
> thinking just dropping fiber instead to avoid needing arrestors.  What
> fiber does everyone recommend and what connector kit?  If its to
> expensive may just get some premade fiber runs or go cat-5/6.
>
>
> 
> 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] Fiber Termination Kit

[Matt]

We are looking to trench some fiber to a new tower a few hundred foot
away.  Was wandering how cost effective to cut and terminate our own
fiber for this would be?  Its close enough for cat-6 to reach but was
thinking just dropping fiber instead to avoid needing arrestors.  What
fiber does everyone recommend and what connector kit?  If its to
expensive may just get some premade fiber runs or go cat-5/6.



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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Chuck Hogg]

Eric: The whole purpose of this test was to create an omni effect.
You're talking about something totally different, and I have often
wondered that as well.  I think there was a company that did this a
long time ago, Luxul maybe?  You would buy their antenna array..and
they claimed a lot but nothing materialized out of it AFAIK.

Jim: I don't have the data sheets for them, actually they (my techs)
assembled everything while I was in Vegas.

We've gone ahead and converted more clients over to it today, and
speeds/latency are just the same when it was one sector.

Regards,
Chuck



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Eric Rogers  wrote:
> I have often wondered if it would be better to have two antennas in one
> given direction, with one being \ pol and the other antenna being used for /
> pol.  I wondered if special diversity would allow us to achieve better
> penetration results to clients without using splitters.
>
>
>
> Basically order the two of the standard moto antennas, but use one polarity
> on each.
>
>
>
> Eric Rogers
>
> Precision Data Solutions, LLC
>
> (317) 831-3000 x200
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of lakel...@gbcx.net
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:49 PM
> To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
>
>
>
> You are not really talking a phased array here.  Lengths should not be
> critical.
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
> Date: Tue, Oct 25, 2011 2:39 pm
>
>
> Premades?  Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That
>> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this
>> situation.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann 
>> wrote:
>>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and
>>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a
>>> configuration like this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Kristian
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
 I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
 These are preliminary.

 Equipment:
 1 x 320AP

 Configuration with only one sector:
 Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
 AP set to -65 power leveling
 Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
 from -65 to -70) for all clients.
 Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.

 Equipment:
 1 x 320AP
 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com

 Configuration with only one sector:
 Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
 assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
 AP set to -65 power leveling
 Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
 from -65 to -70) for all clients.
 Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.

 So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
 increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
 most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
 transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
 signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
 a higher power now as well.

 Conclusion:
 I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
 little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
 decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
 think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
 that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
 recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
 gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
 consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
 splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
 transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
 however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.

 In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
 sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
 add additional AP's.

 Regards,
 Chuck



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 

 WISPA Wireless

Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Eric Rogers]

I have often wondered if it would be better to have two antennas in one given 
direction, with one being \ pol and the other antenna being used for / pol.  I 
wondered if special diversity would allow us to achieve better penetration 
results to clients without using splitters.

 

Basically order the two of the standard moto antennas, but use one polarity on 
each.

 

Eric Rogers

Precision Data Solutions, LLC

(317) 831-3000 x200

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of lakel...@gbcx.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:49 PM
To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

 

You are not really talking a phased array here.  Lengths should not be 
critical.  

- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
Date: Tue, Oct 25, 2011 2:39 pm


Premades?  Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That
> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this
> situation.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann  
> wrote:
>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and
>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a
>> configuration like this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Kristian
>>
>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>>> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
>>> These are preliminary.
>>>
>>> Equipment:
>>> 1 x 320AP
>>>
>>> Configuration with only one sector:
>>> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
>>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>>> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>>>
>>> Equipment:
>>> 1 x 320AP
>>> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
>>> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>>>
>>> Configuration with only one sector:
>>> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
>>> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
>>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>>> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>>>
>>> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
>>> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
>>> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
>>> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
>>> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
>>> a higher power now as well.
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
>>> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
>>> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
>>> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
>>> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
>>> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
>>> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
>>> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
>>> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
>>> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
>>> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>>>
>>> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
>>> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
>>> add additional AP's.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kristian Hoffmann
>> System Administrator
>> kh...@fire2wire.com
>> http://www.fire2wire.com
>>
>> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Jim Patient]

Interesting, care to post the test results?  

I'm interested to see what the actual attenuation is on these cables at 5.7GHz.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

No they were pre-made/tested by Titan Wireless.

Regards,

Chuck



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Josh Luthman  
wrote:
> Premades?  Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That 
>> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this 
>> situation.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann  
>> wrote:
>>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and 
>>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a 
>>> configuration like this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Kristian
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
 I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
 These are preliminary.

 Equipment:
 1 x 320AP

 Configuration with only one sector:
 Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings) AP 
 set to -65 power leveling Client signals at the AP were -65 (or 
 thereabouts, this fluctuates from -65 to -70) for all clients.
 Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.

 Equipment:
 1 x 320AP
 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com

 Configuration with only one sector:
 Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings, 
 assuming a -6.5dB of loss) AP set to -65 power leveling Client 
 signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates from 
 -65 to -70) for all clients.
 Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.

 So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive 
 levels increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were 
 unchanged, as most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only 
 one client is transmitting at full power now.  That client is also 
 the highest signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are 
 also running at a higher power now as well.

 Conclusion:
 I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a 
 little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to 
 have decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  
 However, I think that our current situation is a little on the 
 edge.  I think that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to 
 use 320AP's, I would recommend this solution.  I think that this 
 solution has a higher net gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results 
 show that it is pretty consistent on being about a total loss of 
 about 8dB using a 4 way splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that 
 loss in turning up the transmit power of the radios.   Your net 
 loss is about 2.5-3dB, however you are able to focus the sectors a little 
 better.

 In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's 
 and 4 sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach 
 capacity, we'll add additional AP's.

 Regards,
 Chuck


 ---
 -
 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/

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kristian Hoffmann
>>> System Administrator
>>> kh...@fire2wire.com
>>> http://www.fire2wire.com
>>>
>>> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 
>>> 800-905-FIRE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>

Re: [WISPA] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can

[Josh Luthman]

http://ubnt.com/wifistation

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David E. Smith  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 14:14, Aaron D. Osgood
>  wrote:
>>
>> I have received several requests from customers who are looking for some
>> sort of WiFi signal booster that attached to their laptop's USB and
>> enhances
>> reception through their internal WiFi radio (sort of an external antenna
>> for
>> their internal built in WiFi radio, if you will). Technologically, I am
>> not
>> sure how this would work but I am surprised that I cannot seem to be able
>> to
>> locate such a device.
>>
>
> Why not just get a whole new USB wireless device (which will probably be
> newer, have a better receiver, probably a better antenna, and maybe even an
> external antenna lead if they're really desperate)?
> If you can educate them into buying a product that actually exists, you
> could even sell them that product and make a few dollars on the way.
> David Smith
> MVN.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] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can

[David E. Smith]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 14:14, Aaron D. Osgood <
aosg...@streamline-solutions.net> wrote:

> I have received several requests from customers who are looking for some
> sort of WiFi signal booster that attached to their laptop's USB and
> enhances
> reception through their internal WiFi radio (sort of an external antenna
> for
> their internal built in WiFi radio, if you will). Technologically, I am not
> sure how this would work but I am surprised that I cannot seem to be able
> to
> locate such a device.
>
>
Why not just get a whole new USB wireless device (which will probably be
newer, have a better receiver, probably a better antenna, and maybe even an
external antenna lead if they're really desperate)?

If you can educate them into buying a product that actually exists, you
could even sell them that product and make a few dollars on the way.

David Smith
MVN.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/

Re: [WISPA] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can

[Aaron D. Osgood]

+1


TOPIC CHANGE: 

I have received several requests from customers who are looking for some
sort of WiFi signal booster that attached to their laptop's USB and enhances
reception through their internal WiFi radio (sort of an external antenna for
their internal built in WiFi radio, if you will). Technologically, I am not
sure how this would work but I am surprised that I cannot seem to be able to
locate such a device.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Aaron D. Osgood 

Streamline Solutions L.L.C

P.O. Box 6115
Falmouth, ME 04105

TEL: 207-781-5561
MOBILE: 207-831-5829
ICQ: 206889374
GVoice: 207.518.8455
GTalk: aaron.osgood
aosg...@streamline-solutions.net 
http://www.streamline-solutions.net

Introducing Efficiency to Business since 1986. 


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of j284...@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 8:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can

+1
Sent from my BlackBerryR

-Original Message-
From: Marco Coelho 
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:58:56 
To: WISPA General List
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can





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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Chuck Hogg]

No they were pre-made/tested by Titan Wireless.

Regards,

Chuck



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> Premades?  Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That
>> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this
>> situation.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann  
>> wrote:
>>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and
>>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a
>>> configuration like this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Kristian
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
 I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
 These are preliminary.

 Equipment:
 1 x 320AP

 Configuration with only one sector:
 Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
 AP set to -65 power leveling
 Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
 from -65 to -70) for all clients.
 Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.

 Equipment:
 1 x 320AP
 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com

 Configuration with only one sector:
 Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
 assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
 AP set to -65 power leveling
 Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
 from -65 to -70) for all clients.
 Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.

 So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
 increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
 most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
 transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
 signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
 a higher power now as well.

 Conclusion:
 I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
 little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
 decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
 think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
 that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
 recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
 gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
 consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
 splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
 transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
 however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.

 In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
 sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
 add additional AP's.

 Regards,
 Chuck


 
 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/

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kristian Hoffmann
>>> System Administrator
>>> kh...@fire2wire.com
>>> http://www.fire2wire.com
>>>
>>> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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:
> htt

Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[lakel...@gbcx.net]

You are not really talking a phased array here.  Lengths should not be 
critical.  

- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
Date: Tue, Oct 25, 2011 2:39 pm


Premades?  Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That
> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this
> situation.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann  
> wrote:
>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and
>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a
>> configuration like this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Kristian
>>
>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>>> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
>>> These are preliminary.
>>>
>>> Equipment:
>>> 1 x 320AP
>>>
>>> Configuration with only one sector:
>>> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
>>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>>> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>>>
>>> Equipment:
>>> 1 x 320AP
>>> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
>>> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>>>
>>> Configuration with only one sector:
>>> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
>>> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
>>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>>> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>>>
>>> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
>>> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
>>> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
>>> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
>>> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
>>> a higher power now as well.
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
>>> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
>>> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
>>> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
>>> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
>>> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
>>> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
>>> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
>>> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
>>> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
>>> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>>>
>>> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
>>> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
>>> add additional AP's.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kristian Hoffmann
>> System Administrator
>> kh...@fire2wire.com
>> http://www.fire2wire.com
>>
>> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/ma

Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Josh Luthman]

Premades?  Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That
> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this
> situation.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann  
> wrote:
>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and
>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a
>> configuration like this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Kristian
>>
>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>>> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
>>> These are preliminary.
>>>
>>> Equipment:
>>> 1 x 320AP
>>>
>>> Configuration with only one sector:
>>> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
>>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>>> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>>>
>>> Equipment:
>>> 1 x 320AP
>>> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
>>> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>>>
>>> Configuration with only one sector:
>>> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
>>> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
>>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>>> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>>>
>>> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
>>> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
>>> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
>>> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
>>> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
>>> a higher power now as well.
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
>>> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
>>> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
>>> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
>>> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
>>> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
>>> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
>>> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
>>> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
>>> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
>>> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>>>
>>> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
>>> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
>>> add additional AP's.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kristian Hoffmann
>> System Administrator
>> kh...@fire2wire.com
>> http://www.fire2wire.com
>>
>> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Chuck Hogg]

It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length.  That
was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this
situation.

Regards,
Chuck



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann  wrote:
> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and
> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a
> configuration like this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Kristian
>
> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
>> These are preliminary.
>>
>> Equipment:
>> 1 x 320AP
>>
>> Configuration with only one sector:
>> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>>
>> Equipment:
>> 1 x 320AP
>> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
>> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>>
>> Configuration with only one sector:
>> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
>> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>>
>> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
>> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
>> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
>> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
>> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
>> a higher power now as well.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
>> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
>> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
>> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
>> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
>> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
>> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
>> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
>> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
>> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
>> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>>
>> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
>> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
>> add additional AP's.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> --
> Kristian Hoffmann
> System Administrator
> kh...@fire2wire.com
> http://www.fire2wire.com
>
> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Kristian Hoffmann]

Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and 
antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a 
configuration like this?

Thanks,

-Kristian

On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
> These are preliminary.
>
> Equipment:
> 1 x 320AP
>
> Configuration with only one sector:
> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
> AP set to -65 power leveling
> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>
> Equipment:
> 1 x 320AP
> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>
> Configuration with only one sector:
> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
> AP set to -65 power leveling
> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>
> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
> a higher power now as well.
>
> Conclusion:
> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>
> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
> add additional AP's.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
> 
> 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/
>


-- 
Kristian Hoffmann
System Administrator
kh...@fire2wire.com
http://www.fire2wire.com

Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE




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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Chuck Hogg]

Yes.

Regards,

Chuck



On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Eric Muehleisen  wrote:
> Thanks for posting your results Chuck. I've been looking into this idea for
> a while, but never pulled the trigger.
>
> I presume you used the Moto stock sectors?
>
> -Eric
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>>
>> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
>> These are preliminary.
>>
>> Equipment:
>> 1 x 320AP
>>
>> Configuration with only one sector:
>> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>>
>> Equipment:
>> 1 x 320AP
>> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
>> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>>
>> Configuration with only one sector:
>> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
>> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
>> AP set to -65 power leveling
>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
>> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
>> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>>
>> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
>> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
>> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
>> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
>> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
>> a higher power now as well.
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
>> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
>> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
>> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
>> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
>> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
>> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
>> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
>> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
>> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
>> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>>
>> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
>> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
>> add additional AP's.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Eric Muehleisen]

Thanks for posting your results Chuck. I've been looking into this idea for
a while, but never pulled the trigger.

I presume you used the Moto stock sectors?

-Eric

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
> These are preliminary.
>
> Equipment:
> 1 x 320AP
>
> Configuration with only one sector:
> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
> AP set to -65 power leveling
> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.
>
> Equipment:
> 1 x 320AP
> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com
>
> Configuration with only one sector:
> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
> assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
> AP set to -65 power leveling
> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
> from -65 to -70) for all clients.
> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.
>
> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
> increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
> most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
> transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
> signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
> a higher power now as well.
>
> Conclusion:
> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
> little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
> think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
> recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
> gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
> splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
> transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.
>
> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
> add additional AP's.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>
>
> 
> 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] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

[Patrick D. Nix, Jr]

You've given me a lot to consider. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:01 PM, "Tom DeReggi"  wrote:

> Can't rely on the noise level reading indicated on a live link's status 
> screen.  (although we tend to put a lot of weight on the noise shown using 
> the Spectrum Scanner over a period of time, paying attention to the peak 
> value (blue line) ). 
> But even then, the results are shown as a single reading, and not 
> individually for each polarity. What happens if one polarity is low noise and 
> the other polarity has super high noise? 
>  
> For a noise free 2 mile ubiquiti link at 20Mhz, dual pol, we can actually get 
> Iperf to push 70mbps. Although testing with devices/laptops attached tp ends 
> of the radios.  So if you can only get 40mbps, something is wrong with the 
> testing method or the link.
>  
> Heck, a 10mhz channel can push 35-40mbps with Iperf, at top modulation.. 
> You could continue further by dropping down to 10Mhz, and seeing the rate of 
> change. Also at 20Mhz, you have the flexibilty to change channels to make 
> sure you aren't  centered on a bad channel.
>  
> What speed does the UBNT embedded speed test show? Note UBNT test is also 
> based on TCP. On average our testing usally will see very simlar speed 
> results comparing the UBNT built in test to Iperf. If UBNT test is also slow, 
> you definately have a link issue. If UBNT test is much faster, then scrutinze 
> your testing devices. Or play with Iperf to make sure its not the Iperf 
> setting s you are using requiring tweaking.  Also, if using Iperf, try 
> parallel streams, to see if you get a higher agregate throughput. That will 
> tell you if it is a real capacity limit, or a TCP slow down issue due to 
> quality.  It should be noted that the UBNT Rocket using it's embeeded test 
> tool, can successfully perform a full speed test. I've tested up to 85mbps. 
> So, to reduce variables, to trouble shoot a link problem, rely on the 
> embedded test tool until such time that the embeeded tool can reach full 
> speed. Once that is accomplished, you can scrutinize link quality further 
> with Iperf.  The only need for Iperf is to test multi-hop to a non-UBNT end 
> point, or parallel streams, to gather more data.   
>  
> We had an issue with Bullets not to long ago, where 5.3.3 firmware was super 
> slow, but switching down to a 5.2 version solve the performance problem.
> But that is not a Rocket. We've used later firmwares for Rockets fine, 
> usually.  
>  
> When you push traffic does your modulation change frequently? or stay steady? 
> Generally its good practice to leave radio set to a max mode equivllent to 
> what it will stay at on average without downshifting.
>  
> if your link generally stays steady on a mode/modulation, and you are not 
> getting throughput appropriate for that  modulation, using the UBNT inbedded 
> tests, its usually a timing thing, preventing the link from functioning 
> optimally.  Manually stting the ACK time is one thing that is within your 
> control to play with. 
> When in doubt, if nothing makes sense, and you cant solve it, try changing 
> firmware. Not only upgrade but downgrade. This has fixed our performance 
> issues numerous times, even though a clear answer of why, was not determined.
>  
> What antennas are you using? Are they UBNT? If not, do they have a high 
> enough port-to-port isolation? 
>  
> You also cant rule out multipath self interference, as with that you wont see 
> noise if you aren't transmitting. You can try narrowing antenna beamwidth, if 
> you aren't already.
>  
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>  
>  
> - Original Message -
> From: Patrick D. Nix, Jr
> To: WISPA General List
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
> 
> Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about 30mbps.  My signal is 
> at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -85+).  ACK is set auto 
> with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is approx 1.5mi).  cable not an 
> issue.  any thoughts?
>  
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>  
> You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK distances, 3) 
> not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third party factor effecting 
> testing, such as testing devices that cant generate that much traffic or 
> buffer sizes of routers.
>  
> The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and see if the speed 
> tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops proportionally. I bet the 
> 20Mhz channel will perform better.
> Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not mean you have a 
> clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port is limited to 100mb, and 
> if there is cable quality issues such as due to

[WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update

[Chuck Hogg]

I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results.
These are preliminary.

Equipment:
1 x 320AP

Configuration with only one sector:
Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings)
AP set to -65 power leveling
Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
from -65 to -70) for all clients.
Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75.

Equipment:
1 x 320AP
4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors
2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com

Configuration with only one sector:
Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings,
assuming a -6.5dB of loss)
AP set to -65 power leveling
Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates
from -65 to -70) for all clients.
Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78.

So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels
increased by about 3.5-4dB.  Tower receive levels were unchanged, as
most of the clients were power leveled down.  Only one client is
transmitting at full power now.  That client is also the highest
signal on both sides.  Most client transmit levels are also running at
a higher power now as well.

Conclusion:
I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a
little aggressive.  If the majority of your clients are going to have
decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it.  However, I
think that our current situation is a little on the edge.  I think
that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would
recommend this solution.  I think that this solution has a higher net
gain over using an 8dB omni.  My results show that it is pretty
consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way
splitter.  You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the
transmit power of the radios.   Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB,
however you are able to focus the sectors a little better.

In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4
sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO).  Once they reach capacity, we'll
add additional AP's.

Regards,
Chuck



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] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

[Steve Barnes]

This sounds like an odd thing to try but have you tried switching which end is 
the AP and the STA.  I Have not found UBNT PTP links to be anywhere close to 
symmetrical and have had 2 different times that switching the AP end to improve 
signal and troughput.

Also with some help of Justin Wilson we have found that there is more stability 
in setting up a EOIP link from MT to MT across the Links.  

Steve Barnes
General Manager
PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Stuart Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:50 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

Have you tried to not use auto for ack and set the ack for 1.5 times the 
distance ?

-- Original Message --
From: Mike Hammett 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:38:39 -0500

>I haven't deployed any Rocket PtP links with less than 55
signal.
>
>Have you followed UBNT's best practices guide? 
>http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/Best%20Practices.pdf
>
>Next step, hit up their forum or their support. Matt at UBNT
worked some 
>magic on one of my links and it has been solid ever since.
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>On 10/24/2011 4:52 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
>>
>> Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about
30mbps.  My 
>> signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -
85+).  
>> ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is
approx 
>> 1.5mi).  cable not an issue.  any thoughts?
>>
>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
boun...@wispa.org] 
>> *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
>> *To:* WISPA General List
>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>
>> You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK 
>> distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third
party 
>> factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant
generate 
>> that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers.
>>
>> The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and
see if the 
>> speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops
proportionally. I 
>> bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better.
>>
>> Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not
mean you 
>> have a clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port
is limited 
>> to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to 
>> distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to
PC, 
>> isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is very rare to find
40Mhz of 
>> clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest
packet loss 
>> and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> *From:*Patrick D. Nix, Jr

>>
>> *To:*WISPA General List 
>>
>> *Sent:*Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM
>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>
>> Problem is when I turn airmax on the speed really goes in
the
>> toilet.  Best I can get is about 20mbps. According to
ubiquiti
>> airmax needs to be off up to 15km links, anything over
that
>> airmax needs to be on.  Do you have good success with
short airmax
>> ptp links?
>>
>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
>> 
>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis
Johnson
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 2:45 PM
>> *To:* WISPA General List
>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>
>> Turn AirMax on.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>> On 10/24/2011 1:36 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
>>
>> What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is
getting on
>> a PtP ubnt connection?  We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5
mi, CCQ
>> 97-98%, 40mhz channel width, airmax off.
>>
>> Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270.  Real TCP throughput via
iperf
>> radio to radio is 40-45mbps.
>>
>> Are there some config changes needed perhaps?
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> -
---
>>
>> 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 Want

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

[Stuart Pierce]

Have you tried to not use auto for ack and set the ack for 1.5 
times the distance ?

-- Original Message --
From: Mike Hammett 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:38:39 -0500

>I haven't deployed any Rocket PtP links with less than 55 
signal.
>
>Have you followed UBNT's best practices guide? 
>http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/Best%20Practices.pdf
>
>Next step, hit up their forum or their support. Matt at UBNT 
worked some 
>magic on one of my links and it has been solid ever since.
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>On 10/24/2011 4:52 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
>>
>> Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about 
30mbps.  My 
>> signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -
85+).  
>> ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is 
approx 
>> 1.5mi).  cable not an issue.  any thoughts?
>>
>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
boun...@wispa.org] 
>> *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
>> *To:* WISPA General List
>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>
>> You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK 
>> distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third 
party 
>> factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant 
generate 
>> that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers.
>>
>> The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and 
see if the 
>> speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops 
proportionally. I 
>> bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better.
>>
>> Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not 
mean you 
>> have a clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port 
is limited 
>> to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to 
>> distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to 
PC, 
>> isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is very rare to find 
40Mhz of 
>> clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest 
packet loss 
>> and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> *From:*Patrick D. Nix, Jr 

>>
>> *To:*WISPA General List 
>>
>> *Sent:*Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM
>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>
>> Problem is when I turn airmax on the speed really goes in 
the
>> toilet.  Best I can get is about 20mbps. According to 
ubiquiti
>> airmax needs to be off up to 15km links, anything over  
that
>> airmax needs to be on.  Do you have good success with 
short airmax
>> ptp links?
>>
>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
>> 
>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis 
Johnson
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 2:45 PM
>> *To:* WISPA General List
>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
>>
>> Turn AirMax on.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>> On 10/24/2011 1:36 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
>>
>> What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is 
getting on
>> a PtP ubnt connection?  We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5 
mi, CCQ
>> 97-98%, 40mhz channel width, airmax off.
>>
>> Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270.  Real TCP throughput via 
iperf
>> radio to radio is 40-45mbps.
>>
>> Are there some config changes needed perhaps?
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> -
---
>>
>> 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:
>> h

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

[Mike Hammett]

I haven't deployed any Rocket PtP links with less than 55 signal.

Have you followed UBNT's best practices guide? 
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/Best%20Practices.pdf


Next step, hit up their forum or their support. Matt at UBNT worked some 
magic on one of my links and it has been solid ever since.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 10/24/2011 4:52 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:


Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about 30mbps.  My 
signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -85+).  
ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is approx 
1.5mi).  cable not an issue.  any thoughts?


*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
*On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi

*Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK 
distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third party 
factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant generate 
that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers.


The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and see if the 
speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops proportionally. I 
bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better.


Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not mean you 
have a clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port is limited 
to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to 
distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to PC, 
isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is very rare to find 40Mhz of 
clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest packet loss 
and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message -

*From:*Patrick D. Nix, Jr 

*To:*WISPA General List 

*Sent:*Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM

*Subject:*Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

Problem is when I turn airmax on the speed really goes in the
toilet.  Best I can get is about 20mbps. According to ubiquiti
airmax needs to be off up to 15km links, anything over  that
airmax needs to be on.  Do you have good success with short airmax
ptp links?

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org

[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson
*Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 2:45 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

Turn AirMax on.

Travis

On 10/24/2011 1:36 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:

What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is getting on
a PtP ubnt connection?  We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5 mi, CCQ
97-98%, 40mhz channel width, airmax off.

Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270.  Real TCP throughput via iperf
radio to radio is 40-45mbps.

Are there some config changes needed perhaps?



  

  





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/