I'm running almost the same link at 8 miles although on the rb532 - signal is about -77 dbm
Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:59 PM > To: Lonnie Nunweiler; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > Oops... > > I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet > legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 > mile -48. > > However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the > Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different. Any > reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db. > > So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 > db loss, unless I don't have the distance right. I do have set at 1 mile in > driver. > > However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it > now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps. I confirmed that CPU usage > hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on. So appears to > be CPU limited. > > Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails > (ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5" Ufl to N pigtails? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:59 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 > > > 300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You > either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with > antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you > -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling. > > Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out > the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to > be under limits throughput severely. > > Lonnie > > > > On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 > > yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The > > radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. > > All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. > > > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > > mbps, > > and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to > > SU) > > > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real > > throughput > > (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through > > in > > longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), > > retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can > > be > > much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to > > hog > > up channels. > > > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or > > the > > WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing > > speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > > > For those interested.... > > > > My business decission question is: > > > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > > 4) Trango has better testing tools > > 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that > > cost > > ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent > > availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), > > > > What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for > > small community projects? > > > > 802.11 Atheros gives you... > > > > 1) Mesh designs > > 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only > > a > > $50 cost per radio card added. > > 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. > > 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. > > 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. > > 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly > > adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). > > > > #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss > > the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. > > > > My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / > > multi-tenant complex. > > I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), > > apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango > > 60 > > degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik > > 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I > > would > > normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, > > apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports > > including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per > > building. > > But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN > > switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with > > maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two > > devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote > > reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a > > typical > > VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use > > VLAN > > support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other > > end > > users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth > > manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to > > IPs > > and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known > > in > > advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other > > users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, > > it > > can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. > > > > I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure > > out > > how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd > > argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the > > project. > > > > Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a > > Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, > > because > > large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN > > custoemrs to untag > > > > In summary... > > > > 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP > > line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of > > home > > brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type > > projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again > > so > > what. > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 10/9/2005 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 10/09/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 10/09/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
