I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily at that rate.
If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth > is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a > reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" > system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available > bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical > service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as > important as the download. > > Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an > upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try > and surf with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if > it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of > the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, > latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system > (in upload or download scenarios). > > Travis > > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Travis, >> >> I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and >> customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg >> connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear >> would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all >> of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put >> together. >> >> As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - >> it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it. :^) >> >> I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just >> doesn't have certain features that StarOS does. StarOS has kickass >> Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and >> deployment. MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use >> them so they don't mean a lot to me. >> >> FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it >> fits into 4meg of memory. Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the >> Nanos. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number >>> of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total >>> bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and >>> have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, >>> and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. >>> >>> And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community >>> is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for >>> Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> >>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>> >>>> Travis Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Matt, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >>>>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >>>>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >>>>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >>>>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >>>>> work. >>>>> >>>>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >>>>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >>>>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >>>>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >>>>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >>>>> AP (on the upload side). >>>>> >>>>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >>>>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >>>>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >>>>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >>>>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >>>>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >>>>> upload running. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming >>>> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity >>>> of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I >>>> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >>>>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >>>>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. >>>> >>>> Matt Larsen >>>> vistabeam.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA 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/
