He didn't say he was at -40 rssi. He said he had 40db of SNR. But regardless... to test accurately, the two radios need to be connected via coax, and an adequate attenuator in between.
With that said, we had similar results to David, UNTIL we used faster processor boards. Processor speed was key. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Burgess - Linktechs.net" <dmburg...@linktechs.net> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8GHz Backhaul Radio Recommendations > yep, anything more than -40 is BAD. better tests are around -55 or so.. > > ------------------------------ > * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer > WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* > *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net > <http://www.linktechs.net/> > > */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training > <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* > > > > Jack Unger wrote: >> David, >> >> Just for info here but it's possible that your signals were so loud >> that the receivers were being overloaded. That drives them bananas... >> >> jack >> >> >> David E. Smith wrote: >>> Dennis Burgess - Linktechs.net wrote: >>> >>>> Yes you have to have a good processor, it does compression. I also >>>> believe it does MPPP as well, and larger frame sizes as well to get >>>> higher speeds. Hence, processor usage is key. >>>> >>> >>> When I was testing this - pretty informally, two radios set on the floor >>> of the office about a hundred feet apart - the speeds weren't that much >>> higher, and the latency was all weird. The RF link was pretty good (I >>> think there was 40-some-odd points of SNR), and when I used them in >>> regular AP/bridge mode, or basic WDS, I actually got better performance >>> than when I enabled polling and Nstreme and all the other Mikrotik >>> proprietary magic checkboxes. >>> >>> The throughput was pretty comparable, but when the link was even lightly >>> loaded, pings went bananas. Instead of being consistent, some would be >>> 3ms, some would be 100ms. I figured that was because my little ping >>> packets were being bundled up with other packets, then transmitted when >>> it was most efficient for the radio, as opposed to being sent on-demand. >>> >>> First, is that pretty close to accurate? Second, in the real world, when >>> you're trying to do something like VOIP or gaming that's sensitive to >>> latency, how noticeable is it? >>> >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >> Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >> WISPs - Do you know where your customers are? >> For wireless coverage mapping see http://www.ask-wi.com/mapping >> FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger> >> Phone 818-227-4220 Email <jun...@ask-wi.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/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1884 - Release Date: 1/9/2009 > 8:38 AM > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
