Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
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 mailto:pni...@cnetworksolutions.com *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *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 [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 mailto: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] 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 wispawirel...@ics-il.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 mailto:pni...@cnetworksolutions.com *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *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 [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 mailto: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/ Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
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 wispawirel...@ics-il.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 mailto:pni...@cnetworksolutions.com *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *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 [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 mailto: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
[WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
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
You've given me a lot to consider. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 24, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net 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 distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to PC,
Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
Yes. Regards, Chuck On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.com 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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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
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
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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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
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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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
You are not really talking a phased array here. Lengths should not be critical. - Reply message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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/ 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
+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 coelh...@gmail.com Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:58:56 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can
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
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 d...@mvn.net wrote: 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/ 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
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 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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
Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
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 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update
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 ecrog...@precisionds.com 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 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 ch...@shelbybb.com 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 kh...@fire2wire.com 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
[WISPA] Fiber Termination Kit
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] Fiber Termination Kit
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 lm7...@gmail.com 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] Net Neutrality
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] Net Neutrality
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/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
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 mailto:t...@razzolink.comt...@razzolink.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/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] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
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 spie...@avolve.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 wispawirel...@ics-il.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 mailto:pni...@cnetworksolutions.com *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *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
