Its not a question of manufacturer, its a question of model and/or rev of model. Near impossible to have time to test them all, there are so many..
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Stewart" <stewa...@westcreston.ca> To: <n...@brevardwireless.com>; "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections > How do D-Link products rate in your experience? > > Al > > ------ At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen 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/
