Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
FWIW, Cisco 871's will route wirespeed at 100 megabits/sec, but can only firewall/NAT/VPN at 25 megabits/sec. John >-Original Message- >From: Al Stewart [mailto:stewa...@westcreston.ca] >Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 03:05 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Thanks Tom ... > >I know some of the cheaper wireless routers on our system have been >causing speed problems for various reasons. And I can see the reasons >for the problems. But for most people, I guess a router is a router, >and they don't want to spend big bucks. > >For myself, I'm looking to replace my own personal D-Link DI-704P >(wired) with another wired unit. Researching models gives all kinds >of conflicting info/complaints/recommendations. Someone here >recommended, so I guess I'll see what I can track down on that. > >Al > >-- At 05:54 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > >>Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons. >> >>1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent >>throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit >>gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput. Its not >>uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same >>brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it >>is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't >>originally capable.. >> >>2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps is >>just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers >>have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not >>just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not be >>optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large network >>buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL, >>may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve >>RAM, and use less ram to lower costs. >> >>However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and usually >>do fine up at higher speeds. Also be cautious of using a VPN router, >>because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the >>tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed. The best thing to do is to >>certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont >>believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results. >> >>The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you test >>the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises? >>If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know >>it is? >> >>This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to >>have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly >>to the router. >>In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through >>it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it. Having fast >>processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this problem. >> >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Al Stewart" >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >> >> > Thanks ... this helps. >> > >> > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >> > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >> > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >> > at least what the >> > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >> > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >> > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >> > ALL the routers in the system. >> > >> > Al >> > >> > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >> > >> >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >> >>address those conditions. >> >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >> >>and/or >> >>lots of uploads. >> >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >> >>The bigger problem is NOT fa
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
I use an MT unit at my house for my personal connection. marlon - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > Thanks Tom ... > > I know some of the cheaper wireless routers on our system have been > causing speed problems for various reasons. And I can see the reasons > for the problems. But for most people, I guess a router is a router, > and they don't want to spend big bucks. > > For myself, I'm looking to replace my own personal D-Link DI-704P > (wired) with another wired unit. Researching models gives all kinds > of conflicting info/complaints/recommendations. Someone here > recommended, so I guess I'll see what I can track down on that. > > Al > > -- At 05:54 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > >>Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons. >> >>1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent >>throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit >>gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput. Its >>not >>uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same >>brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it >>is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't >>originally capable.. >> >>2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps >>is >>just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers >>have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not >>just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not >>be >>optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large >>network >>buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL, >>may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve >>RAM, and use less ram to lower costs. >> >>However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and >>usually >>do fine up at higher speeds. Also be cautious of using a VPN router, >>because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the >>tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed. The best thing to do is to >>certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont >>believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results. >> >>The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you >>test >>the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises? >>If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know >>it is? >> >>This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to >>have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly >>to the router. >>In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through >>it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it. Having fast >>processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this >>problem. >> >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Al Stewart" >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >> >> > Thanks ... this helps. >> > >> > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >> > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >> > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >> > at least what the >> > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >> > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >> > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >> > ALL the routers in the system. >> > >> > Al >> > >> > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >> > >> >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >> >>address those conditions. >> >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >> >>and/or >> >>lots of uploads. >> >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >> >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub,
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
And that is a problem. Al -- At 05:56 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >Its not a question of manufacturer, its a question of model and/or rev of >model. >Near impossible to have time to test them all, there are so many.. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: ; "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > How do D-Link products rate in your experience? > > > > Al > > > > -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- > > > >>This could be a very touchy topic. > >>Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there > >>problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At > >>your > >>location or your ISP's its inevitable. > >>But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact > >>that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't > >>doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy > >>on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers > >>don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they > >>remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > >> > >>As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of > >>speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I > >>know > >>back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on > >>wan > >>to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down > >>under the 10Mb/s mark. > >>I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and > >>its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the > >>standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > >> > >>Nick Olsen > >>Brevard Wireless > >>(321) 205-1100 x106 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>From: "Al Stewart" > >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > >>To: "WISPA General List" > >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >> > >>Thanks ... this helps. > >> > >>One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > >>wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > >>be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > >>at least what the > >>nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > >>for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > >>course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > >>ALL the routers in the system. > >> > >>Al > >> > >>-- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > >> > >> >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >> >address those conditions. > >> >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > >>and/or > >> >lots of uploads. > >> >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >> >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >> >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >> >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and > >> >Radios > >> >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is > >> >gfoing > >>to > >> >be up or down during the congestion time. > >> >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because > >>its > >> >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >> >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > >>Therfore > >> >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited > >>amount > >> >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >> > > >> >We took a two prong approach to fix. > >> > > >> >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs > >> >set > >>to > >> >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR > >
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Thanks Tom ... I know some of the cheaper wireless routers on our system have been causing speed problems for various reasons. And I can see the reasons for the problems. But for most people, I guess a router is a router, and they don't want to spend big bucks. For myself, I'm looking to replace my own personal D-Link DI-704P (wired) with another wired unit. Researching models gives all kinds of conflicting info/complaints/recommendations. Someone here recommended, so I guess I'll see what I can track down on that. Al -- At 05:54 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons. > >1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent >throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit >gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput. Its not >uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same >brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it >is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't >originally capable.. > >2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps is >just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers >have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not >just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not be >optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large network >buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL, >may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve >RAM, and use less ram to lower costs. > >However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and usually >do fine up at higher speeds. Also be cautious of using a VPN router, >because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the >tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed. The best thing to do is to >certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont >believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results. > >The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you test >the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises? >If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know >it is? > >This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to >have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly >to the router. >In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through >it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it. Having fast >processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this problem. > > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Thanks ... this helps. > > > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > > at least what the > > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > > ALL the routers in the system. > > > > Al > > > > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >>address those conditions. > >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > >>and/or > >>lots of uploads. > >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing > >>to > >>be up or down during the congestion time. > >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its > >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > >>Therfore > >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upl
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Its not a question of manufacturer, its a question of model and/or rev of model. Near impossible to have time to test them all, there are so many.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > How do D-Link products rate in your experience? > > Al > > -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- > >>This could be a very touchy topic. >>Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >>problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At >>your >>location or your ISP's its inevitable. >>But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >>that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >>doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >>on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >>don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >>remove the router and it all works great suddenly. >> >>As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >>speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I >>know >>back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on >>wan >>to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >>under the 10Mb/s mark. >>I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >>its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >>standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) >> >>Nick Olsen >>Brevard Wireless >>(321) 205-1100 x106 >> >> >> >> >>From: "Al Stewart" >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >>Thanks ... this helps. >> >>One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >>wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >>be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >>at least what the >>nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >>for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >>course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >>ALL the routers in the system. >> >>Al >> >>-- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >> >> >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >> >address those conditions. >> >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >>and/or >> >lots of uploads. >> >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >> >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >> >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >> >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and >> >Radios >> >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is >> >gfoing >>to >> >be up or down during the congestion time. >> >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >>its >> >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >> >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >>Therfore >> >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >>amount >> >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. >> > >> >We took a two prong approach to fix. >> > >> >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs >> >set >>to >> >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR >> >speed). >> >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >>have >> >a time slice for uploading. >> > >> >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >>users >> >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. >> > >> >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. >> > >> >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >> >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then,
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons. 1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput. Its not uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't originally capable.. 2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps is just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not be optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large network buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL, may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve RAM, and use less ram to lower costs. However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and usually do fine up at higher speeds. Also be cautious of using a VPN router, because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed. The best thing to do is to certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results. The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you test the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises? If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know it is? This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly to the router. In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it. Having fast processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this problem. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > Thanks ... this helps. > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > at least what the > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > ALL the routers in the system. > > Al > > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >>address those conditions. >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >>and/or >>lots of uploads. >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >>to >>be up or down during the congestion time. >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >>Therfore >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >>amount >>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. >> >>We took a two prong approach to fix. >> >>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >>to >>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >>have >>a time slice for uploading. >> >>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users >>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. >> >>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. >> >>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >>really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >>service
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Can you track the usage through the system? Not just speed tests from a site. I see overall slowdowns out here from a couple of probable causes. One is, overall usage of the entire band, my systems and those of my competitors. It causes all noise to go up. Another is that some of my customers have really bad installations. Trees in the way, just clearing a hill etc. The kind of things you have to do from time to time if you want to make a go of this business. But now, with more people on the ap's, those customers with their massive retrans rates are causing some real issues on some of my APs. We're adding ap's and working to improve link qualities on as many customers as possible. Good luck to you Al! marlon - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >I know ... there's no easy answer. We have a situation where in the > early morning speeds are in the vicinity of 2000 (2.0 meg), and by > 4:30 in the afternoon, speeds will drop to 1/4 of that. That says to > me that there are a number of people doing pretty steady usage ... > but I could be wrong. There may be other factors. > > Al > > > -- At 09:35 AM 10/15/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- > >>It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. >> >>Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 >>teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. >> >>My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to >>the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, >>remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks >>but >>use less on a consistent basis. >> >>Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business >>customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST >>as >>much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. >> >>Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. >>marlon >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Al Stewart" >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >> >> > Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 >> > meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous >> > connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what >> > point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the >> > bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There >> > has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. >> > >> > We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. >> > >> > Al >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- END QUOTE - > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Which routers/brands are you referring to? And what do you consider the good brands? Al -- At 06:45 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, RickG wrote: --- >Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off >the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% >throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other >issues such as disconnects, etc. >-RickG > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > This could be a very touchy topic. > > Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there > > problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your > > location or your ISP's its inevitable. > > But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact > > that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't > > doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy > > on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers > > don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they > > remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > > > > As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of > > speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know > > back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan > > to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down > > under the 10Mb/s mark. > > I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and > > its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the > > standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > > > > Nick Olsen > > Brevard Wireless > > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > > > > > > From: "Al Stewart" > > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Thanks ... this helps. > > > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > > at least what the > > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > > ALL the routers in the system. > > > > Al > > > > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >>address those conditions. > >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > > and/or > >>lots of uploads. > >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing > > to > >>be up or down during the congestion time. > >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because > > its > >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > > Therfore > >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited > > amount > >>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >> > >>We took a two prong approach to fix. > >> > >>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set > > to > >>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to > > have > >>a time slice for uploading. > >> > >>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every > > users > >>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >> > >>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >> > >>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >>really dont realize it for most appl
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Just had a weird one today. Custom said he had a "higher business class Linksys" and the dhcp lease passed my NAT'ed SM as the DNS server. Couldn't resolve DNS. Plugged into the PC into SM and asking the same IP for DNS it works. On 10/15/09, RickG wrote: > Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off > the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% > throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other > issues such as disconnects, etc. > -RickG > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen > wrote: >> This could be a very touchy topic. >> Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >> problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At >> your >> location or your ISP's its inevitable. >> But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >> that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >> doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >> on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >> don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >> remove the router and it all works great suddenly. >> >> As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >> speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I >> know >> back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on >> wan >> to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >> under the 10Mb/s mark. >> I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >> its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >> standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) >> >> Nick Olsen >> Brevard Wireless >> (321) 205-1100 x106 >> >> >> >> >> From: "Al Stewart" >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >> Thanks ... this helps. >> >> One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >> wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >> be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >> at least what the >> nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >> for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >> course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >> ALL the routers in the system. >> >> Al >> >> -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >> >>>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >>>address those conditions. >>>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >> and/or >>>lots of uploads. >>>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >>>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >>>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >>>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >>>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >> to >>>be up or down during the congestion time. >>>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >> its >>>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >>>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >> Therfore >>>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >> amount >>>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. >>> >>>We took a two prong approach to fix. >>> >>>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >> to >>>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >>>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >> have >>>a time slice for uploading. >>> >>>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >> users >>>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. >>> >>>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. >>> >>>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >>>congestion. They might slow down to
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any "off the shelf" router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other issues such as disconnects, etc. -RickG On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > This could be a very touchy topic. > Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there > problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your > location or your ISP's its inevitable. > But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact > that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't > doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy > on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers > don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they > remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > > As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of > speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know > back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan > to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down > under the 10Mb/s mark. > I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and > its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the > standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "Al Stewart" > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > Thanks ... this helps. > > One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or > wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can > be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times > at least what the > nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers > for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of > course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be > ALL the routers in the system. > > Al > > -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > >>Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >>address those conditions. >>The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets > and/or >>lots of uploads. >>Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >>The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >>managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >>This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >>are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing > to >>be up or down during the congestion time. >>Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because > its >>common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >>direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. > Therfore >>when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited > amount >>of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. >> >>We took a two prong approach to fix. >> >>1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set > to >>end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >>Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to > have >>a time slice for uploading. >> >>2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every > users >>gets fair weight to available bandwdith. >> >>With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. >> >>If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >>congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >>really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >>service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively > to >>most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >>mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >>plans. >> >> But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is > reached >>packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end > user, >>because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >>learned faster speeds w
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Depends on which one. I use to use a DGL-4300 one of there "Gaming" routers. And it would do about 80Mb/s Wan to Lan. Most of the new routers today are pretty well off. They still don't handle P2P all that well. But are way better then they were like 1 year ago. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Al Stewart" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- >This could be a very touchy topic. >Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your >location or your ISP's its inevitable. >But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > >As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know >back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan >to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >under the 10Mb/s mark. >I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > >Nick Olsen >Brevard Wireless >(321) 205-1100 x106 > > >-------- > >From: "Al Stewart" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >To: "WISPA General List" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Thanks ... this helps. > >One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >at least what the >nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >ALL the routers in the system. > >Al > >-- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >address those conditions. > >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >and/or > >lots of uploads. > >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >to > >be up or down during the congestion time. > >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >its > >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >Therfore > >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >amount > >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > > > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > > > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >to > >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >have > >a time slice for uploading. > > > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >users > >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > > > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > > > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively >to > >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >mbps level r
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- >This could be a very touchy topic. >Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there >problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your >location or your ISP's its inevitable. >But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact >that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't >doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy >on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers >don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they >remove the router and it all works great suddenly. > >As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of >speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know >back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan >to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down >under the 10Mb/s mark. >I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and >its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the >standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) > >Nick Olsen >Brevard Wireless >(321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > >From: "Al Stewart" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM >To: "WISPA General List" >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Thanks ... this helps. > >One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or >wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can >be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times >at least what the >nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers >for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of >course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be >ALL the routers in the system. > >Al > >-- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- > > >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to > >address those conditions. > >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets >and/or > >lots of uploads. > >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. > >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead > >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. > >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios > >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing >to > >be up or down during the congestion time. > >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because >its > >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download > >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. >Therfore > >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited >amount > >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > > > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > > > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set >to > >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). > >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to >have > >a time slice for uploading. > > > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every >users > >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > > > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > > > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is > >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses > >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of > >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively >to > >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 > >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb > >plans. > > > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is >reached > >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end >user, > >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also > >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to >slower > >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of >the > >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person c
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
This could be a very touchy topic. Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your location or your ISP's its inevitable. But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they remove the router and it all works great suddenly. As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down under the 10Mb/s mark. I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "Al Stewart" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >address those conditions. >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or >lots of uploads. >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to >be up or down during the congestion time. >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have >a time slice for uploading. > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >plans. > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > >VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, >it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if >someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets >discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 20
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- >Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to >address those conditions. >The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or >lots of uploads. >Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. >The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead >managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. >This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios >are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to >be up or down during the congestion time. >Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its >common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download >direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore >when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount >of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. > >We took a two prong approach to fix. > >1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to >end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). >Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have >a time slice for uploading. > >2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users >gets fair weight to available bandwdith. > >With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. > >If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is >congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses >really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of >service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to >most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 >mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb >plans. > > But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached >packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, >because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also >learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower >speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the >radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. > >VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, >it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if >someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets >discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > > or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc > > at the same time? > > > > Al > > > > -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- > > > >>At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be > >>better. > >> > >>Chris Cooper > >>Intelliwave > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >>Behalf Of Al Stewart > >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM > >>To: WISPA General List > >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >> > >>Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > >>meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > >>connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > >>point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > >>bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > >>has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will h
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth his going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage > probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 > or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc > at the same time? > > Al > > -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- > >>At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be >>better. >> >>Chris Cooper >>Intelliwave >> >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Al Stewart >>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections >> >>Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 >>meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous >>connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what >>point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the >>bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There >>has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. >> >>We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. >> >>Al >> >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>http://signup.wispa.org/ >>
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
I know ... there's no easy answer. We have a situation where in the early morning speeds are in the vicinity of 2000 (2.0 meg), and by 4:30 in the afternoon, speeds will drop to 1/4 of that. That says to me that there are a number of people doing pretty steady usage ... but I could be wrong. There may be other factors. Al -- At 09:35 AM 10/15/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- >It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. > >Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 >teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. > >My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to >the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, >remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks but >use less on a consistent basis. > >Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business >customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST as >much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. > >Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. >marlon > >- Original Message - >From: "Al Stewart" >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM >Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > > > > Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > > meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > > connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > > point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > > bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > > has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > > > > We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > > > > Al > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks but use less on a consistent basis. Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST as much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. marlon - Original Message - From: "Al Stewart" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 > meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous > connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what > point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the > bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There > has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > > We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > > Al > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc at the same time? Al -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- >At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be >better. > >Chris Cooper >Intelliwave > >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Al Stewart >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > >Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 >meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous >connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what >point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the >bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There >has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. > >We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. > >Al > > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be better. Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
