1...2...5!!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Cameron Kilton <c...@midcoast.com> wrote: > Kaboom - There is Wireless shrapnel is everywhere. > > -Cam > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:49 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > > Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.....:^) > > On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a > "typical example of 802.11 not scaling". If there is only one access > point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary > users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three > 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an > 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas > would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per > client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants > to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad > > that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't > hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. > > As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to > provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my > customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations > where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 > > user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the > extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since > nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. > > I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but > something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are > way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption > that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), > full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being > done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of > users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is > picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and > multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going > to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty > cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency > issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to > have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests > > delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on > > an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not > a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and > minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and > the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous > uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still > maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet > loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this > manner. > > I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have > no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to > do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to > make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend > the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. > > Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than > $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could > > deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that > includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch > antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to > manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy > requires. > > Your turn. :^) > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > Matt, > > > > This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber > > backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The > > issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, > > equal manner. > > > > Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of > > > testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided > > > to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a > > consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We > > have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and > > QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 > > users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same > > towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at > > > least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have > > some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of > > spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. > > > > Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell > > you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as > > many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't > > have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I > > can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the > > > time, to every single user. > > > > And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for > > less than $600 each. :) > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > 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/
