im affraid, the signal level is not the most important thing at all. what about ccq @ existing linkHi There,
Please excuse me but I am a total newbie here.
Has anyone used Dual Polarity Pac Wireless 32dB parabolic? Will they work as well as Jirous 29dB Dual Polarity?
I would like to replace an existing 5Ghz link that currently has Pac Wireless 32dB dishes in place, the distance is 30KM and i can achive -55
signal strength using Turbo mode.
I would like to use the Pac Wireless Dishes as they're in place but I've been told the polarity seperation is very bad,
any help would be very much appreciated.
Kind regards,
nikki
We use those dishes on a 19mile link. -55 at either end with 80's-90's CCQ. Noise around -105 on both ends. Throughput is a little less than 80mbit (tested one way, hdx). The collapsed dual-pol design on one dish won't give you the best performance but they're space efficient, cost effective and easy to install. So, how much speed do you need? If ~50meg give or take, will do, the dual-pol radome is convenient. If you need more speed then you'll want to use seperate dishes with spacial separation.Has anyone used Dual Polarity Pac Wireless 32dB parabolic? Will they work as well as Jirous 29dB Dual Polarity?
I would like to replace an existing 5Ghz link that currently has Pac Wireless 32dB dishes in place, the distance is 30KM and i can achive -55
I would like to use the Pac Wireless Dishes as they're in place but I've been told the polarity seperation is very bad,
Hi There,
Please excuse me but I am a total newbie here.
Has anyone used Dual Polarity Pac Wireless 32dB parabolic? Will they work as well as Jirous 29dB Dual Polarity?
I would like to replace an existing 5Ghz link that currently has Pac Wireless 32dB dishes in place, the distance is 30KM and i can achive -55
signal strength using Turbo mode.
I would like to use the Pac Wireless Dishes as they're in place but I've been told the polarity seperation is very bad,
any help would be very much appreciated.
Kind regards,
nikki
You should stay anonym with this signal valuesI tested today the "Exe-Config.
2 x RB411AH, 2 x R52hN, 2 x Mars 24,5 db Dual Polarity, Distance 25 km, LoS, very noisy enviroment, bridge mode, Btest over both RB411AH, Antenna on one side "off beam" due to lack of "second" man. I think it will bring 6 db more, if the antennas are correct justated.
Results:
20 Mhz Bandwith, 25-30 MB TCP, MCS4 stable Connection, Signal -69 to 72 db.
40 Mhz Bandwith, 45-55 MB TCP, MCS4 stable Connection -70 to 74 db.
Do not use WEP or WPA/TKIP. It slows downt he speed . WPA/TKIP 50 % slower and WEP 25 % slower. I used WPA/TKIP and there was no speed loss.
It works. Thanks to Exe.
I will go "hot" next week....
Regards
Wolff
http://www.funknetz-hg.de
I tested today the "Exe-Config.
2 x RB411AH, 2 x R52hN, 2 x Mars 24,5 db Dual Polarity, Distance 25 km, LoS, very noisy enviroment, bridge mode, Btest over both RB411AH, Antenna on one side "off beam" due to lack of "second" man. I think it will bring 6 db more, if the antennas are correct justated.
Results:
20 Mhz Bandwith, 25-30 MB TCP, MCS4 stable Connection, Signal -69 to 72 db.
40 Mhz Bandwith, 45-55 MB TCP, MCS4 stable Connection -70 to 74 db.
Do not use WEP or WPA/TKIP. It slows downt he speed . WPA/TKIP 50 % slower and WEP 25 % slower. I used WPA/TKIP and there was no speed loss.
It works. Thanks to Exe.
I will go "hot" next week....
Regards
Wolff
http://www.funknetz-hg.de
We use those dishes on a 19mile link. -55 at either end with 80's-90's CCQ. Noise around -105 on both ends. Throughput is a little less than 80mbit (tested one way, hdx). The collapsed dual-pol design on one dish won't give you the best performance but they're space efficient, cost effective and easy to install. So, how much speed do you need? If ~50meg give or take, will do, the dual-pol radome is convenient. If you need more speed then you'll want to use seperate dishes with spacial separation.Has anyone used Dual Polarity Pac Wireless 32dB parabolic? Will they work as well as Jirous 29dB Dual Polarity?
I would like to replace an existing 5Ghz link that currently has Pac Wireless 32dB dishes in place, the distance is 30KM and i can achive -55
I would like to use the Pac Wireless Dishes as they're in place but I've been told the polarity seperation is very bad,
But as was previously stated, the most important element is environment. Do you have low noise and available channels? If yes, you should be fine with whatever antenna system you select. If not, the best antenna won't be much help.
-Nelson-
how much cost that converter? could you show how it looks like?I have ready transvertors for 10 and UP GHz working
It has exactly same shape like this one (a bit other guts inside), except that this one is for full duplex radiolink like Ceragon, Dragonwave and Carriercom are with speed up to 350mbits full duplex.how much cost that converter? could you show how it looks like?I have ready transvertors for 10 and UP GHz working
please pm your email. i would like to start negotiations on the pricePrice is negotiable, depends on band and output power.
Would you mind to share with us how it's work?It has exactly same shape like this one (a bit other guts inside), except that this one is for full duplex radiolink like Ceragon, Dragonwave and Carriercom are with speed up to 350mbits full duplex.how much cost that converter? could you show how it looks like?I have ready transvertors for 10 and UP GHz working
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2 ... 0085712801
Price is negotiable, depends on band and output power. But know that this should be like expansion box for ROS, once guys fro MT will improve Nstreme Dual
Simply said, it is top notch technology up converter for transmitter with amplifier and down converter for reception with purity to pass thru cca 512QAM signal if needed. Then there is separator of transmitter from receiver to not jam the receiver (something like diplexer). Than it has detector to transmit exact power out (not estimated) and tuners to make transmitting within bound of cca 1GHz bandwith - lets say 1O -11GHz (the case you can see). Nice thing is that you loose about 1/2dB at all on input, because there is amplifier directly on receiving dipol. This feeder can be part of parabolic antenna which works like amplifier. With approx 60cm antennas you can do 20km link with Pout 2mW.
Would you mind to share with us how it's work?
and how is the connection for this?
me too pleaseplease pm your email. i would like to start negotiations on the pricePrice is negotiable, depends on band and output power.
My own experience is that water surfaces are really big big big problem for radiolinks. On all frequencies.. Especially on long links..30 km 5 Ghz link over water: lake St-Jean, Qc, Canada
I will give a try on 5beta1 as 4.7 package is broken...
Canada Mirror package 4.7 is OK !I will give a try on 5beta1 as 4.7 package is broken...
20/20 Mbps TCP in a both BT test when i use supported MCS 0-3 (disable MCS 4) !Now is -80 but i'm still doing 10/10 Mbps TCP in a both BT test...
We've had better luck with R52n's than the SR71's. We tried the 71's...excited about the 3-chain ability. But in our testing, while the 71's work "fine", throughput and CCQ is consistantly better on the R52n's. Our testing has not been exhaustive and we don't have enough hours on the 71's to make a conclusive call (and there's a lot of new variables with MIMO testing...in our application we were running 3 chains at the AP, 2 on the clients [happy to accept advice on MIMO configurations btw]) but first impressions...R52n's a better card. If it's easy to do I'd be curious to see your results on that same shot with a card swap.30 km 5 Ghz link over water: lake St-Jean, Qc, Canada
- SR71-15 on each side;
It works, but we experienced some issues with x86 and RB800 wrong temp value and some kernel problem if minipci-e slot is used, so we use v4.5 for now...does exe's config work on v4.6? I'm using it successfully on v4.5 but cannot bring down the link to test
Tested it today on RB411AH/R52N/4.7 seems to look much better now.we tested 4.7 on RB800 and it is shoing high latency on high load using plain station mode without bridge;
At the moment the best config for us is 5.0beta1 and EXE's config (station-wds).
regards
Ros
cpu at laptop1 - btest server 60-80% - (ibm thinkpad x40, lan intel 1gbe switched to 100 mbit full duplex, winxp)please take a look to the cpu utilization of notebook...
i think windows BT cannot give more on tcp speed test ...
check speed with an other MT (i have tested e.g. with an 750G) from the LAN side ...
hiI see that many of you complain on 802.11n latency and bandwidth.
When you say that latency is not better in 802.11n then 802.11a, you are very very wrong. Our experience is different. 802.11n link can handle more than dual nstreme at 802.11a with better latency: 1-3ms max.
In order to make ease for you, here is what we test successfully for live links with real internet traffic, without issues:
Let's imagine we have points A and B... A >10km> B
You need to configure like this (we are using ROS 4.5, Sparklan Wmia 198N MinIPCI and RB800):
Point A: Enable nstreme, put 5G only N, mode: ap bridge, remove all data rates, HW Retries 15, HT Chains: 0,1 both, HT Guard: any, HT Ext. channel: for example above control, HT Ampdu 0, HT Supported MCS: 0,1,2,3,4 .. HT Basic MCS: 0 .. WDS mode static, Nstreme: Enable Nstreme>Enable Pooling>Disable CSMA, Framer policy: Dynamic, framer limit: any from 2400-3000 ...
Create WDS interface for point B
Point B: All the same, just put mode: station WDS, enable nstreme and you are ready to go!!!
Try this, if you have good results it is okay, if you have poor result, choose better frequency.
If you have good signal you can enable mcs 5,6,7 .. try it...
This link can give 50M/50M without no problems with latency like in 802.11a dual nstreme .. If you have enough signal margin you can achieve more bandwidth. Latency will be very low: 1-3ms with real internet traffic of 30-35M ...
Signal must not be higher than -65 ...
Note: If you disable nstreme, link will not work.. If your distance between A and B is under 10km, then you can use MCS 5,6,7,8,9,10 and more but you need to determine this on both parts of the link. Just see what works stable with more bandwidth.
Optimization of 802.11n in ROS is not perfect and need more work, but this setup can work without issues. Just try it.
enable chain 0 and disable chain 1 then align
hi
we have a n link and i hope you can help me to set it up
we have a r52hn card at both ends with 2 grids 1 horizontal and 1 vertical at both ends
we used your settings but only get up to 117m on 1 side and the ccq is only about 60/60
the problem is we can not figure out how to line up the grids as when we move them there is no difference in the ccq
is there a special way to line up the grids and check the ccq when doing the alignment for the hn card
any help would be welcome
thanks
hmmm then I might be doing things wrong aswell then...lets see what others sayThanks for the reply
That is what we did but still no joy. Moving the grid does not change the signal at all.
Do you have to plug the grids in the same connector in both sides?
Ours is horizontal grid to middle connector (chain0) and vertical grid to side connector (chain1).
Thanks
Edit: I see you are from South Africa as well. Is there any way to get in touch with you, as I'm not having any luck with the alignment.
Change frequency and try then. Use dual polarization antennas. 117M is very good with current optimization in mikrotik.we used your settings but only get up to 117m on 1 side and the ccq is only about 60/60
the problem is we can not figure out how to line up the grids as when we move them there is no difference in the ccq
is there a special way to line up the grids and check the ccq when doing the alignment for the hn card
thanks
Yes - 2km link RB411 - RB532A using R52ns in Pacwireless 18dB Rootennas:Is someone try to test speed using only one chain, single polarity antenna ? If someone try please post result.
Thanks.
The thing is that the nstream and the pooling policy runs much more greater but it is still behind airmax
Hope that routeros will squeeze much more (in near future) from the 802.11n standard that in this moment .
Greets all!
The thing is that the nstream and the pooling policy runs much more greater but it is still behind airmax
Hope that routeros will squeeze much more (in near future) from the 802.11n standard that in this moment .
Greets all!
I am surprised to hear this. In all my testing (long distance PtP links) Airmax is obviously the inferior protocol vs nstreme. No doubt.
Does Airmax just work at 40mhz on a 25 mile link?The thing is that the nstream and the pooling policy runs much more greater but it is still behind airmax
Hope that routeros will squeeze much more (in near future) from the 802.11n standard that in this moment .
Greets all!
I am surprised to hear this. In all my testing (long distance PtP links) Airmax is obviously the inferior protocol vs nstreme. No doubt.
Care to Explain how so? In my testing it's been the opposite way around, Aurmax just "works"
I'm Back on this topic, since long time.
I tried once again a live link (lab links aint interesting )
It's a short link, 5KMs, exe's configuration (thanks exe) but with dynamic wds and hw-retries=4
Looks good even today, in a rainy day. It supports max 50mbit FD, then the ping rate raises a little.
Looking forward to make a 100mbit FD
Hey colebert,
Does Airmax just work at 40mhz on a 25 mile link?
Does Airmax just work at 20mhz on a 40 mile link?
Does Airmax have better latency and jitter than nstreme?
No, No, No is the answer at this time. Don't believe me? Stop by the ubnt forum and see the complaints for yourself. The new beta firmware has helped some with jitter but wake me up when Airmax works as well for long distance ptp links as nstreme. Can I get airmax to work? Yes. It's "working" right now in a degraded capacity on about half of my links but it's pretty obvious for my links that airmax is the inferior solution.
I have all kinds of problems with Airmax on the majority of my PtP links with one or two notable exceptions. But when I replace my balky Airmax links with with Mikrotik/nstreme solutions they work just fine. Mikrotik has it's own issues and is not perfect when it comes to their form factor and design of their units, but when it comes to running a smooth PTP link there is no contest in my experience. I am counting down the days, hours, minutes, and seconds until I can get my links all moved over to nstreme.
I will give you just one example. 26 mile PTP link. Put a Bullet M5s on each of my dishes. Airmax on, no ack, 40mhz channel, mcs7, etc. Terrible CCQ (40s, 50s mostly), 17% airmax capacity, 30 something % airmax quality, jitter and packet loss all over the place. Have to bust the link down to 20mhz, turn off no ack, set the ack time out manually, just to get a stable link with jitter on it. Keep in mind this is out in the country, way up in the air, on a professional microwave tower, giant Andrew dishes, clear fresnel, etc. Airmax should "just work" here but doesn't. I can squeeze out about 17mbps of TCP traffic if I'm lucky. Bring in Mikrotik with RB411AH/SR71-15 and nstreme, keep everything else the same. Perfect 40mhz channel, 99%+ CCQ under load, 60 to 70 megs of aggregate TCP traffic. We have a winner.
Obviously this is just one link but I can provide more examples that follow this same sequence. In fairness I do have one Airmax link at is about 36 miles and working solidly with 40mhz and no ack. I get 30 megs EACH WAY (60 megs aggregate). But this is the exception and not the rule for Ubiquiti products on my PTPs which is why they are being retired before I ever really started using them.
how can i open the attachment??Here is the homework for wireless. Link is at 2km, using rb800 and sparklan wpea-110n and our config posted on this forum. Link is stable using 2 chains under v4.5 ... UDP test at 200.1M ... Real internet traffic achieved is between 180 and 190M downloading from rapidshare... Check picture:
no, 4.9 fixes the issue and wds should no longer be required. this was true for earlier versions. check the changelog.nstreme with WDS
same Q !!how can i open the attachment??Here is the homework for wireless. Link is at 2km, using rb800 and sparklan wpea-110n and our config posted on this forum. Link is stable using 2 chains under v4.5 ... UDP test at 200.1M ... Real internet traffic achieved is between 180 and 190M downloading from rapidshare... Check picture:
what kind of antennas do you use??
tnx
bye
Try out the latest 5.2 beta firmware and check latency when passing traffic. With AIRMAX-on I get under 10ms latency sending 90Mbps TCP traffic on a 6 mile link. With AIRMAX-off its about 35ms but the thoughput is 15 megs lower.I noticed that PtP link works best without airmax.
yesHere is the homework for wireless. Link is at 2km, using rb800 and sparklan wpea-110n and our config posted on this forum. Link is stable using 2 chains under v4.5 ... UDP test at 200.1M ... Real internet traffic achieved is between 180 and 190M downloading from rapidshare... Check picture:
Here it is again:Normis is on vacation.
I guess the problem is with exe post on 11.05.2010.
It seems the attachment was deleted (it is not possible to find on server), so we should ask exe to upload it one more time.
I am testing two RB411 now in bridge and can't get 200 Mbit UDP which I achieved about year ago with bridge with RB600A and RB433AH maybe at that time routeros 4.2.
Current setting and condition:
- indoor test
- Two RB411 with R52N, routeros 4.9
- bridge, WDS, 5 GHz-n, hw. retries 3
- signal is good, CCQ is good and stable over 90%
- link speed is i 270 Mbit HT and estimated P throughput is 150 Mbit
- 300 MHz CPU is not overloaded, usage about 30 % caused partly by test itself
- routeros UDP test goes up to 47 Mbit, speedtest.net mini measured 37 Mbit TCP
Why max. real UDP throughput is only 50 Mbit then it should be 200 Mbit?
Is this some limit of RB411 even CPU is not loaded too much?
Weird thing is that link speed can't get to 300 Mbit HT, only 270 HT even with good signal.
5GHz a mode real UDP throughput is 29 Mbit with good CCQ and 54/54 Mbit link speed, real TCP test using speedtest.net mini measure about 23 Mbit TCP
There should be some magic setting somewhere.
I have to buy another RB600A or other more powerfull board to repeat earlier tests and compare results.
Something is not OK.. My own experience is that 65mbit HW makes 60mbit thruput, 121mbit HW makes 95mbit thruput, as count as counting 270mbit has to make at least 210mbit thruput in layer2.. There is inter chain problem.. I will work this out next monthI have same issue with 270HT mbps. My link also never connect at 300HT/300HT. All time is connected on 270HT/270HT. Can anyone tell me what's wrong in my config?
Very Thanks.
I am testing two RB411 now in bridge and can't get 200 Mbit UDP which I achieved about year ago with bridge with RB600A and RB433AH maybe at that time routeros 4.2.
Current setting and condition:
- indoor test
- Two RB411 with R52N, routeros 4.9
- bridge, WDS, 5 GHz-n, hw. retries 3
- signal is good, CCQ is good and stable over 90%
- link speed is i 270 Mbit HT and estimated P throughput is 150 Mbit
- 300 MHz CPU is not overloaded, usage about 30 % caused partly by test itself
- routeros UDP test goes up to 47 Mbit, speedtest.net mini measured 37 Mbit TCP
Why max. real UDP throughput is only 50 Mbit then it should be 200 Mbit?
Is this some limit of RB411 even CPU is not loaded too much?
Weird thing is that link speed can't get to 300 Mbit HT, only 270 HT even with good signal.
5GHz a mode real UDP throughput is 29 Mbit with good CCQ and 54/54 Mbit link speed, real TCP test using speedtest.net mini measure about 23 Mbit TCP
There should be some magic setting somewhere.
I have to buy another RB600A or other more powerfull board to repeat earlier tests and compare results.
hi does anybody know what the distance between 2 grids must be to use 2 chains 0n each side
thanks
culd you more recently introduce situation - antennas, distance and what system you use (routerboard, pc)...I also tested 802.11n this mooning.
On production link simple replace UB5 on both side with R5nH and pigtail cable use some setting like before nstreme enabled, WDS static other side station WDS, adaptive noise immunity ap and client mode all like before on 5Ghz turbo link. Both side 4.9
Mode 5Ghz-a/n and change one new thing HT extension channel above control.
Noting special to configure.
And here is results.
Compare to 5GHz turbo link much better speed simple replace only minipci card. Before TCP test one side usually 60-65Mbps now is 80-95Mbps.
I like 802.11n is work good with only one chain (antena).
I will try to replace some others link and try 2,4Ghz-n.
What is MS? And MK....
AM I correct that you work from MS to MS
...
Would be nice if MK will increase the power to +/- 400 mW so that the loss could be compensated for. Call it a R52H+n card.
0 R name=wlan1 mtu=1500 mac-address=00:0C:42:64:2C:2C arp=enabled disable-running-check=no interface-type=Atheros 11N radio-name=000C42642C2C mode=ap-bridge ssid=NG-HH area="" frequency-mode=superchannel country=canada antenna-gain=0 frequency=5700 band=5ghz-onlyn scan-list=default rate-set=configured supported-rates-b=1Mbps,2Mbps,5.5Mbps,11Mbps supported-rates-a/g=6Mbps,9Mbps,12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps basic-rates-b=1Mbps basic-rates-a/g=6Mbps max-station-count=2007 ack-timeout=dynamic tx-power-mode=default periodic-calibration=default periodic-calibration-interval=60 dfs-mode=none wds-mode dynamic wds-default-bridge=bridge1 wds-default-cost=100 wds-cost-range=50-150 wds-ignore-ssid=no update-stats-interval=disabled default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0 proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 wmm-support=disabled hide-ssid=no security-profile=default disconnect-timeout=3s on-fail-retry-time=100ms preamble-mode=both compression=no allow-sharedkey=no station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 ht-ampdu-priorities=0 ht-guard-interval=any ht-extension-channel=above-control ht-supported-mcs=mcs-4,mcs-5,mcs-6,mcs-7,mcs-8,mcs-9,mcs-10,mcs-11,mcs-12,mcs-13,mcs-14,mcs-15 ht-basic-mcs=mcs-4,mcs
-5,mcs-6,mcs-7 ht-txchains=0 ht-rxchains=0 ht-amsdu-limit=8192 ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 hw-retries=15 frame-lifetime=0 adaptive-noise-immunity=none hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none hw-protection-threshold=0 frequency-offset=0
Check very first pages of this topic, there was something mentioned about your problem. After upgrade to 4.10 I don't see any of those.i found posts which mentioned that N and nstream is not compatible but i had same 'not polled for to long' on pure A links.
maybe MT ppl can tell us how to solve this ?
on pure data links it's not a big problem if 1 ping will be lost but on links carrying call center voice traffic its catastrophe
unfortunately, no. n-draft usable when everything is almost ideal. and after that nobody knows why if not usable. we fighting for bandwidth test of 100Mbps (FDX) @ 5km link already year - unsuccessfully. -55dBm levels, 140Mbps, but only one directional. when direction=both, worst results done.I have a poor link that is only running at 3 mbps with 10 Mhz channel bandwidth.
It is a link with no good line of sight, because many trees and bushes are there.
Is it possible to use 802.11n for that link and getting more speed?
Greetings
I have a customer trying to accomplish it right now. He's using some high dollar filters to do it. He's got the link working, but he's still working out the kinks to try to get it above the bandwidth of just one fully maxed out 2x2 40MHz N link.it's still only a dream
+1.. I'm think of moving back to 11a-turbo setup already..
1 R name="r52-n" mtu=1500 mac-address=00:0C:42:61:98:05 arp=enabled disable-running-check=no interface-type=Atheros 11N
radio-name="r52piontec_1" mode=ap-bridge ssid="test-1" area="" frequency-mode=manual-txpower country=poland
antenna-gain=16 frequency=5200 band=5ghz-onlyn scan-list=default rate-set=default
supported-rates-b=1Mbps,2Mbps,5.5Mbps,11Mbps
supported-rates-a/g=6Mbps,9Mbps,12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps,36Mbps,48Mbps,54Mbps basic-rates-b=1Mbps basic-rates-a/g=6Mbps
max-station-count=2007 ack-timeout=dynamic tx-power=12 tx-power-mode=card-rates periodic-calibration=default
periodic-calibration-interval=60 dfs-mode=none wds-mode=dynamic-mesh wds-default-bridge=mesh-testb
wds-default-cost=100 wds-cost-range=50-150 wds-ignore-ssid=no update-stats-interval=disabled
default-authentication=yes default-forwarding=yes default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-client-tx-limit=0
proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 wmm-support=enabled hide-ssid=no security-profile=default disconnect-timeout=3s
on-fail-retry-time=100ms preamble-mode=both compression=no allow-sharedkey=no
station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 ht-ampdu-priorities=0,1 ht-guard-interval=any
ht-extension-channel=above-control
ht-supported-mcs=mcs-0,mcs-1,mcs-2,mcs-3,mcs-4,mcs-5,mcs-6,mcs-7,mcs-8,mcs-9,mcs-10,mcs-11,mcs-12,mcs-13,mcs-14,mcs-
15
ht-basic-mcs=mcs-0,mcs-1,mcs-2,mcs-3,mcs-4,mcs-5,mcs-6,mcs-7 ht-txchains=0,1 ht-rxchains=0,1 ht-amsdu-limit=8192
ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 hw-retries=3 frame-lifetime=0 adaptive-noise-immunity=none
hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none hw-protection-threshold=0 frequency-offset=0
I dont think it can be fixed, you are splitting radio time 50/50 between AP and STATION. If you make it station its 100% dedicated to connecting to AP, if it's AP BRIDGE WDS then its 50% station, 50% AP.The bandwith in WDS (ap bridge/wds - ap bridge-wds) mode is much less than in the mode of the ap bridge/station. When will it be fixed?
So using MPLS bridge setup should eliminate this problem?I dont think it can be fixed, you are splitting radio time 50/50 between AP and STATION. If you make it station its 100% dedicated to connecting to AP, if it's AP BRIDGE WDS then its 50% station, 50% AP.
Thank you for your reply. Well, how do I optimize the network, if I use a dual radio - one module to access and one module for backhaul? MPLS does not help here.I dont think it can be fixed, you are splitting radio time 50/50 between AP and STATION. If you make it station its 100% dedicated to connecting to AP, if it's AP BRIDGE WDS then its 50% station, 50% AP.The bandwith in WDS (ap bridge/wds - ap bridge-wds) mode is much less than in the mode of the ap bridge/station. When will it be fixed?
Its written there on the main page 2.3km.what max distance you test
with n-draft m5
Low Signal or Channel on the Edge of the Band.Its worth noting for people having bandwidth issue during testing that doing bandwidth tests from router to router caps out at around 30mbit for anything below RB433AH. During our testing we found that RB433 plain can only receive 30mbit, Changing to a 433AH resulted in more bandwidth but even than a RB433 will cap out at around 70mbit
Now for a question, Is there a reason for a single chain N link not to go into 40mhz? We've set HT extension channel but it wont go past 65mbit-HT and signal only shows a max of HT20-8 even tho the signal is -65
Simplest way to do is to turn down the output power to minimum.Hi , I am new one im mikrotik. Im using RB433 with N wifi card and 5ghz double antena. I use it only for 1 km and i think i need to attenuation signal. Now Its working like before with single 5ghz antena with G wifi card. I dont find where i can attenuation signal, can somebody help me ?
-55 to -65 is good from my experienceMaybe some hint what signal to look for? I mean in particular numbers.
Yip unfortunatelySo now, i understand, why Mikrotik don't write normal drivers for SR71-15
They don't need the clients, who loved to use Mikrotik hard&soft...
So we start t use Rockets, and each days we found that it works really
Hi forum!
We have been performing some tests with 802.11n+R52n cards and although we got excelent results when short distances and good (very good) signals, as the link gets longer and poorer N behaves quite worse than simple A (at least on 5GHz).
This is the scenario:
17km link
BASE: RB433 (v4.10) + R52n + Ubiquiti Dual Polarization (http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/RocketDish_Datasheet.pdf)
STATION: Same equipment than BASE
These are the results:
Frequent disconnections even when not performing bandwidth tests
Decent signal but very poor bandwidth
No improvments as frecquency changes
No improvments either with different configurations (nstreme, wds, 5Gh-only-N, a,n, 5Ghz, etc)
No improvments when using different polarization combinations on HT Chains.
CPU goes to 100% on both BASE and STATION when performing TCP BandwidthTest (Not UDP)
These are the screenshots:
BASE-Wireless:
BASE-HT:
BASE-HT MCS:
BASE-WDS:
BASE-NSTREME:
BASE-Signal:
STATION-Signal:
BASE-BandwidthTest UDP:
BASE-BandwidthTest TCP:
Any suggestions will be welcome.
Thanks in advance.
Hey Newbie,
Thanks for your quick response. The antennas might not be well-aligned but still I think bandwidth is too poor for the signal got. Anyhow we'll be pleased you could send those info to us. Link placemarks below:
BASE-Lat: 39.519716°
BASE-Long: -0.466781°
STATION-Lat: 39.381389°
STATION-Long: -0.574501°
Best regards.
This is your problem :-0.574501
Hey Newbie,
Thanks for your quick response. The antennas might not be well-aligned but still I think bandwidth is too poor for the signal got. Anyhow we'll be pleased you could send those info to us. Link placemarks below:
BASE-Lat: 39.519716°
BASE-Long: -0.466781°
STATION-Lat: 39.381389°
STATION-Long: -0.574501°
Best regards.This is your problem :-0.574501
there is no clear line of site
please give me your email address I will send you infgo
/interface wireless
set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=none allow-sharedkey=no \
antenna-gain=0 area="" arp=enabled band=5ghz-onlyn basic-rates-a/g="" \
basic-rates-b="" comment="" compression=no country=no_country_set \
default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=\
0 default-forwarding=yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=\
no disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=4920 frequency-mode=\
superchannel frequency-offset=0 hide-ssid=no ht-ampdu-priorities=0 \
ht-amsdu-limit=8192 ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 ht-basic-mcs=mcs-0 \
ht-extension-channel=above-control ht-guard-interval=any ht-rxchains=0,1 \
ht-supported-mcs=mcs-0,mcs-1,mcs-13,mcs-14,mcs-15 ht-txchains=0,1 \
hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none \
hw-protection-threshold=0 hw-retries=15 l2mtu=2290 \
max-station-count=2007 mode=ap-bridge mtu=1500 name=\
wlan1 on-fail-retry-time=100ms periodic-calibration=default \
periodic-calibration-interval=60 preamble-mode=both \
proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 rate-set=\
configured scan-list=default,4920 security-profile=default ssid=\
test station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 \
supported-rates-a/g="" supported-rates-b="" tx-power=10 tx-power-mode=\
all-rates-fixed update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=50-150 \
wds-default-bridge=bridge1 wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \
wds-mode=dynamic wmm-support=disabled
/interface wireless nstreme
set wlan1 comment="" disable-csma=no enable-nstreme=yes \
enable-polling=yes framer-limit=3200 framer-policy=none
and the config at point B:
/interface wireless
set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=none allow-sharedkey=no \
antenna-gain=0 area="" arp=enabled band=5ghz-onlyn basic-rates-a/g="" \
basic-rates-b="" comment="" compression=no country=no_country_set \
default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=\
0 default-forwarding=yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=\
no disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=4920 frequency-mode=\
superchannel frequency-offset=0 hide-ssid=no ht-ampdu-priorities=0 \
ht-amsdu-limit=8192 ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 ht-basic-mcs=mcs-0 \
ht-extension-channel=above-control ht-guard-interval=any ht-rxchains=0,1 \
ht-supported-mcs=mcs-0,mcs-1,mcs-13,mcs-14,mcs-15 ht-txchains=0,1 \
hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none \
hw-protection-threshold=0 hw-retries=15 l2mtu=2290 \
max-station-count=2007 mode=station-wds mtu=1500 name=\
wlan2 on-fail-retry-time=100ms periodic-calibration=default \
periodic-calibration-interval=60 preamble-mode=both \
proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 rate-set=\
configured scan-list=default,4920 security-profile=default ssid=\
test station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 \
supported-rates-a/g="" supported-rates-b="" tx-power=15 tx-power-mode=\
all-rates-fixed update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=50-150 \
wds-default-bridge=bridge1 wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \
wds-mode=dynamic wmm-support=disabled
/interface wireless nstreme
set wlan2 comment="" disable-csma=yes enable-nstreme=yes \
enable-polling=yes framer-limit=3000 framer-policy=dynamic-size
Anyone from mikrotik care to comment on this? Seems pretty serious!then i started testing r52n and found something very strange...
all r52n has good signal value on the link, but only a few of them were able to run at 30Mb/s Full Duplex. After 30 hours of outdoor testing i found that 48 r52n were damaged.. speed about 5Mb/s, 16 r52n were able run at 25-27Mb/s, and only last 36 from 100 were able run at 35Mb/s Full Duplex (tested on exe´s config on 1 chain, 40MHz channel)
the worst thing about this is that there isn´t other way to figure out which one is good a which one isnt. (or i didn´t found one yet)
So if you have problems with your link and you´ve tried everything, including replace wireless card, don´t be so sure that new ones are fine.
how was that test done? speed is not an indication of card quality. it will depend on current conditions of the link, how many people use the link, if there is any traffic on it, etc. You would have to do the test in controlled environment with no interference and no connected devices to be even close to good testing conditions.Anyone from mikrotik care to comment on this? Seems pretty serious!then i started testing r52n and found something very strange...
all r52n has good signal value on the link, but only a few of them were able to run at 30Mb/s Full Duplex. After 30 hours of outdoor testing i found that 48 r52n were damaged.. speed about 5Mb/s, 16 r52n were able run at 25-27Mb/s, and only last 36 from 100 were able run at 35Mb/s Full Duplex (tested on exe´s config on 1 chain, 40MHz channel)
the worst thing about this is that there isn´t other way to figure out which one is good a which one isnt. (or i didn´t found one yet)
So if you have problems with your link and you´ve tried everything, including replace wireless card, don´t be so sure that new ones are fine.
THis is the frustration part of Mikrotik . They have the same attitude as Micro Soft. Only they know.how was that test done? speed is not an indication of card quality. it will depend on current conditions of the link, how many people use the link, if there is any traffic on it, etc. You would have to do the test in controlled environment with no interference and no connected devices to be even close to good testing conditions.Anyone from mikrotik care to comment on this? Seems pretty serious!then i started testing r52n and found something very strange...
all r52n has good signal value on the link, but only a few of them were able to run at 30Mb/s Full Duplex. After 30 hours of outdoor testing i found that 48 r52n were damaged.. speed about 5Mb/s, 16 r52n were able run at 25-27Mb/s, and only last 36 from 100 were able run at 35Mb/s Full Duplex (tested on exe´s config on 1 chain, 40MHz channel)
the worst thing about this is that there isn´t other way to figure out which one is good a which one isnt. (or i didn´t found one yet)
So if you have problems with your link and you´ve tried everything, including replace wireless card, don´t be so sure that new ones are fine.
No not at all. The main problem for me is heat. an then dealing with Scoop. WHatr we have is it over heats and then it fails.Is it so hard to write some details about the issues instead of just complaining that some of your cards are 'bad'?
Play little with Tx Power put it 18,19 or 20 dBm see what's happen with this signal level of course if everything else is ok u can rich 120-140 TCPNo not at all. The main problem for me is heat. an then dealing with Scoop. WHatr we have is it over heats and then it fails.Is it so hard to write some details about the issues instead of just complaining that some of your cards are 'bad'?
The speed getting 80 - 100 Mb/sec is super for me and the software is stable. The links are staying up for days and I am happy with the speed.
I truly want to help and contribute
I do understand that it is not a full duplex that is why we have a radio for rx and on for tx.
We have returned a 411 to poynting direct in Cpt where the heat unsoldered the connector. You can check it with them.
We could have resoldered the connector to the PC board.
We took the radio to scoop they tested it and no fault find. To scared to put it into the network again.
I can give you a login on to our router I can install more equipment that we can test and do what ever you guys need to do so it is not that I don't want to give more info ...
I can get stickers that change coulor with temp it is a good indication of where the temp stopped. THat can proof the temp prob.
My main prob is not getting the heat sorted and as a designer I understand that that is not easy as it comes and goes.
To me 70 M is super
Play little with Tx Power put it 18,19 or 20 dBm see what's hapenNo not at all. The main problem for me is heat. an then dealing with Scoop. WHatr we have is it over heats and then it fails.Is it so hard to write some details about the issues instead of just complaining that some of your cards are 'bad'?
The speed getting 80 - 100 Mb/sec is super for me and the software is stable. The links are staying up for days and I am happy with the speed.
I truly want to help and contribute
I do understand that it is not a full duplex that is why we have a radio for rx and on for tx.
We have returned a 411 to poynting direct in Cpt where the heat unsoldered the connector. You can check it with them.
We could have resoldered the connector to the PC board.
We took the radio to scoop they tested it and no fault find. To scared to put it into the network again.
I can give you a login on to our router I can install more equipment that we can test and do what ever you guys need to do so it is not that I don't want to give more info ...
I can get stickers that change coulor with temp it is a good indication of where the temp stopped. THat can proof the temp prob.
My main prob is not getting the heat sorted and as a designer I understand that that is not easy as it comes and goes.
To me 70 M is super
Problem is his TX/RX rate is too lowSo you are running the BT test from the router itself?
Yes I do enough CPU power to do itProblem is his TX/RX rate is too lowSo you are running the BT test from the router itself?
get bigger antenna instead. or at least use card rates, not all rates fixed.
i´ve tested od 400m link. Link si working fine for 3 months nonstop (my house) so i´m testing there.how was that test done? speed is not an indication of card quality. it will depend on current conditions of the link, how many people use the link, if there is any traffic on it, etc. You would have to do the test in controlled environment with no interference and no connected devices to be even close to good testing conditions.Anyone from mikrotik care to comment on this? Seems pretty serious!then i started testing r52n and found something very strange...
all r52n has good signal value on the link, but only a few of them were able to run at 30Mb/s Full Duplex. After 30 hours of outdoor testing i found that 48 r52n were damaged.. speed about 5Mb/s, 16 r52n were able run at 25-27Mb/s, and only last 36 from 100 were able run at 35Mb/s Full Duplex (tested on exe´s config on 1 chain, 40MHz channel)
the worst thing about this is that there isn´t other way to figure out which one is good a which one isnt. (or i didn´t found one yet)
So if you have problems with your link and you´ve tried everything, including replace wireless card, don´t be so sure that new ones are fine.
why not post here?get bigger antenna instead. or at least use card rates, not all rates fixed.
I send you a google earth .
The link is 8.5 Km I have two 30dB dishes and running ht1 and ht2. THe distance is 9 km I also send you an screen with the freq ussage and the scan stats.
why not post here?get bigger antenna instead. or at least use card rates, not all rates fixed.
I send you a google earth .
The link is 8.5 Km I have two 30dB dishes and running ht1 and ht2. THe distance is 9 km I also send you an screen with the freq ussage and the scan stats.
I see you use 4900-5200 frequencies. Most antennas have been made for 5800 or 5400, look at the antenna radiation patterns. You will also see that the wireless card is calibrated to run at it's full power at 5800.
If you can't change antenna, and you have no choice but to use such frequency, maybe you can upgrade to v5beta and try Nv2 which is what the mentioned motorola uses (TDMA)
Hello
I got a problem with r52n cards, If I set the data rates to configure or default, the maximal HT rate which achieved is HT20-8, and its dont achieved any HT40 data rates..so the maximal TCP throughput is 44Mbit FDX. I try to upgarde from 4.10 to 4.11 but still nothing, try to reset the router but it didnt helped. I'm thing that I use the right configuration, couse same place exectly same hardware is working at the moment with more than 108 mbit tcp throughput.. FDX, I also try to change the cards with other r52n-s
Heres my config at point A
Signal level is: -60/-63Code: Select all/interface wireless set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=none allow-sharedkey=no \ antenna-gain=0 area="" arp=enabled band=5ghz-onlyn basic-rates-a/g="" \ basic-rates-b="" comment="" compression=no country=no_country_set \ default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=\ 0 default-forwarding=yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=\ no disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=4920 frequency-mode=\ superchannel frequency-offset=0 hide-ssid=no ht-ampdu-priorities=0 \ ht-amsdu-limit=8192 ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 ht-basic-mcs=mcs-0 \ ht-extension-channel=above-control ht-guard-interval=any ht-rxchains=0,1 \ ht-supported-mcs=mcs-0,mcs-1,mcs-13,mcs-14,mcs-15 ht-txchains=0,1 \ hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none \ hw-protection-threshold=0 hw-retries=15 l2mtu=2290 \ max-station-count=2007 mode=ap-bridge mtu=1500 name=\ wlan1 on-fail-retry-time=100ms periodic-calibration=default \ periodic-calibration-interval=60 preamble-mode=both \ proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 rate-set=\ configured scan-list=default,4920 security-profile=default ssid=\ test station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 \ supported-rates-a/g="" supported-rates-b="" tx-power=10 tx-power-mode=\ all-rates-fixed update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=50-150 \ wds-default-bridge=bridge1 wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \ wds-mode=dynamic wmm-support=disabled /interface wireless nstreme set wlan1 comment="" disable-csma=no enable-nstreme=yes \ enable-polling=yes framer-limit=3200 framer-policy=none and the config at point B: /interface wireless set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=none allow-sharedkey=no \ antenna-gain=0 area="" arp=enabled band=5ghz-onlyn basic-rates-a/g="" \ basic-rates-b="" comment="" compression=no country=no_country_set \ default-ap-tx-limit=0 default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=\ 0 default-forwarding=yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=\ no disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=4920 frequency-mode=\ superchannel frequency-offset=0 hide-ssid=no ht-ampdu-priorities=0 \ ht-amsdu-limit=8192 ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 ht-basic-mcs=mcs-0 \ ht-extension-channel=above-control ht-guard-interval=any ht-rxchains=0,1 \ ht-supported-mcs=mcs-0,mcs-1,mcs-13,mcs-14,mcs-15 ht-txchains=0,1 \ hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none \ hw-protection-threshold=0 hw-retries=15 l2mtu=2290 \ max-station-count=2007 mode=station-wds mtu=1500 name=\ wlan2 on-fail-retry-time=100ms periodic-calibration=default \ periodic-calibration-interval=60 preamble-mode=both \ proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 rate-set=\ configured scan-list=default,4920 security-profile=default ssid=\ test station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 \ supported-rates-a/g="" supported-rates-b="" tx-power=15 tx-power-mode=\ all-rates-fixed update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=50-150 \ wds-default-bridge=bridge1 wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \ wds-mode=dynamic wmm-support=disabled /interface wireless nstreme set wlan2 comment="" disable-csma=yes enable-nstreme=yes \ enable-polling=yes framer-limit=3000 framer-policy=dynamic-size
noise-floor: -122dBm
Anyone see the same problem? And got any solution for this?
Throughput and CCQ in separate issue than PING.ping on idle link 3X !!!!!! higher 3-4 ms on idle link, on 4.6 firmware we have stable ~1ms link,
Yeah, it needs an update though so you can specify multiple streams instead of just running 10 instancesyou can also try the Btest tool from PC to PC, more control over the kind of traffic you test:
http://www.mikrotik.com/download/btest.exe
For months I have tried to get laptops with wireless N cards to associate to Mikrotik router using 802.11n - but it seems only possible to connect using b/g.
I have tried endless configurations without success. Is Mikrotik 802.11n only designed to connect to other MTs? I can see no other threads other than people discussing point to point links.
What if we want to use MT exclusively for campus and building APs? Fine if we stick with b/g but otherwise we will have to go with UBNT or Ruckus kit for wireless N clients.
Has anyone managed to solve this? Please post configs!
I've a centrino lap. It scales up to 11n rates for downloads but stays at 11a Rates (54Max) up.No I didn't enable NV2 - it wasn't available until recently anyway and certainly not using Nstreme.
I have tried every combination of extension channels, HT-MCS settings but I cannot get PC or Mac wireless clients to connect on N only.
If this won't work we will abandon MT for future hotspot deployments.
And how long has N been available on Mikrotik? Seems like other manufacturers can get it right. Why not MT?I've a centrino lap. It scales up to 11n rates for downloads but stays at 11a Rates (54Max) up.
Seems there are some incompatibilities.
I used RouterBoard 433ah r52n 2 wireless cards for this test.One wireless card I made as AP and and the second one as a client(without minipigtails and antennas) and the signal strengh was -56 db. I wrapped the wifi card with a layer of antistatic film, another layer of aluminum foil and the last layer of an antistatic film again. Then I checked the signal and I got to -72 db- Each outdoor box has only one RB433AH, one R52n and 2 pigtails. At first I put the test board together with another RB433AH in the same box and the RF interferences caused the link to work perfectly only on tx side: the rx side was interferred by the other miniPCI radio even though their working frequencies were spaced by 400MHz!
It seems like you could have some heat related issues with the cards wrapped up like that. Is this something you have ran in production?I used RouterBoard 433ah r52n 2 wireless cards for this test.One wireless card I made as AP and and the second one as a client(without minipigtails and antennas) and the signal strengh was -56 db. I wrapped the wifi card with a layer of antistatic film, another layer of aluminum foil and the last layer of an antistatic film again. Then I checked the signal and I got to -72 db- Each outdoor box has only one RB433AH, one R52n and 2 pigtails. At first I put the test board together with another RB433AH in the same box and the RF interferences caused the link to work perfectly only on tx side: the rx side was interferred by the other miniPCI radio even though their working frequencies were spaced by 400MHz!
This really helped.
I´ve also tested this on cards i use on normal links (wnc cm9) and nothing happened. Signal was always the same - around -71dB
I have a 25 mile link that's supposed to be -55.And just how long was that linke? -55 signal so what, 100m max?
Hello, we use this website for profiling http://www.alphimax.com/m4rk0, what software did you use to make those link drawings?
Hello @ all.
We are a small wisp in Germany. Im reading for a long time here in the forum. We have problems with N, too. The same Problem as chvdr.
Our Equipment at both Sites:
RB433AH + R52N + 2*30dBi Mars Antennas Flat Pannel (No DUAL!!) but in Dual-Polarisation (1 * hor + 1 * ver).
The 2 Antennas (H + V on both Sites) are mounted in a distance of 1 meter. The Distance of the 2 Points (AP and Client) are 11 Km.
The Line is TOP.
Thanks for help.....
joban
Yes, it would explain why after changing wifi cards for cards from Mikrotik signal deteriorates.please note that for the receive signal values the noise floor levels also are taken into the account. And that is why maybe the rx signal is not so high.
Hello,
I have this configuration:
2x RB411 + R52n-M
1x RB433 + 2x R52n-M
4x GRID 5GHz 27dB
RB411 client ->((( ~14km )))->[5640MHz] AP RB433 [5540MHz]<-((( ~15km )))<- RB411 client
Mode is 5GHz-only-N (MCS 0 - 6)
Signal ~ -70
When I try TX bw test from ap to both of clients it works fine, but when I try RX to clients it goes up to 1 Mbps and link drops...
Does anyone have any idea what could it be?
Thanks all for answer.
I think maybe using one chain can get little more bandwidth compare to 5Ghz turbo nstreme. Add one more antenna is little complicated need more space, stronger tower more cables is not option for now on that place. Also dual polarity antenna is usually solid parabolic antenna need stronger tower sometime time wind is very strong.
May be tested on some other place.
One more thanks to all.