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 <n...@brevardwireless.com> 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" <stewa...@westcreston.ca> > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > 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, 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 >> >> >> >> > -------------- 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/ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
