802.11n
Wireless networks

940 posts   •   Page 14 of 19   •   1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19
0ldman
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:01 am

Re: 802.11n

by 0ldman » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:14 am

uldis wrote:when enabling the encryption use only AES. Do not use the TKIP as it will be slow on the N.

That was the source of my troubles.

The odd thing is after going to no encryption, the link still failed. Only after I reset the interface would it connect at HT speeds. I changed my encryption to AES and she's running quite well, though not significantly faster than my A/G networks.

Putting up new equipment and I'll be running MT N hardware, time will tell whether I'll run A/G or N, but as of today, the install is moving forward.

HaQs
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: POLAND

Re: 802.11n

by HaQs » Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:28 am

OK :) But why ubiquiti "N" working fine with simple configuration ?

Maybe MT add wizard to simple configure 802.11n ?

ste
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:21 am

Re: 802.11n

by ste » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:00 am

HaQs wrote:OK :) But why ubiquiti "N" working fine with simple configuration ?

Maybe MT add wizard to simple configure 802.11n ?


We are watching this "working fine" product and testing it.
It is simple unusable for an ETSI-Wisp at the moment.

But you make the point that they seem to do 11n much smoother
and that's what I am missing from MT too. They could start
with an exact documentation which tells what's all about 11n
and with a best practice guide with working examples which makes
us believe they have a successful Wisp-Like test setup.

Hey MT. Take a Wisp in your neighborhood, hire some students
and make a test-village-setup with 11n. So we all might learn
something.

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:28 pm

Next Test:

Notebook -- RB600 --11n-- RB600 -- LAN (with servers and MTS)

2 x RB600 on Desktop like told above, 270/270MBit stable n11 link. Ping delay through the routing RB600 1ms to the LAN behind. very good :) - BUT !

Starting Bandwidht Test TCP "both directions", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 23MBit/17MBit, app. 6Kpps, delay: 8-20ms (ping through link to other side)
Starting a second, prarallel Bandwith Text TCP "both directions", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 24MBit/24MBit, app. 7Kpps, delay: 15-30ms

Starting Bandwidht Test TCP "receive only", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 1MBit/32MBit, app. 4Kpps, delay: 7-11ms
Starting a second, prarallel Bandwith Text TCP "receive only", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 1MBit/40MBit, app. 5Kpps, delay: 9-19ms

Load on both RB600 app. 45%

The UDP Test (RB600_to_RB600) brings unidirect 180MBit, 15Kpps, at delay time of 82ms (limit reached = OK)
The UDP Test (RB600_to_RB600) limited at 100MBit, 8-9Kpps, at delay time of 1-9ms (middle 5ms)

... it seems there is a bottleneck inside OS, which lets the RB600 to queue packets ??? and if the deley increases, TCP throughput limit is reached quickly ...
... because the packet transport within the WLAN seems to have more capacity than the boards/SW is able to push via the WLAN ...

so i dont understand that anyone is able to transport TCP traffic of above 50MBit via the 11n link... This seems not to be possible... The above limit at my test is 50MBit... And i can see that the problem is _not_ the WLAN setting. I think the speed of something inside the box ?!?

Am i wrong ??? please give input if i have an error in my conclusion .... there is no 11n understanding problem, i think...
Please an statement from MT. Thanks !

Dieter

gringoZ
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: 802.11n

by gringoZ » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:23 pm

dieterk wrote:Next Test:

Notebook -- RB600 --11n-- RB600 -- LAN (with servers and MTS)

2 x RB600 on Desktop like told above, 270/270MBit stable n11 link. Ping delay through the routing RB600 1ms to the LAN behind. very good :) - BUT !

so i dont understand that anyone is able to transport TCP traffic of above 50MBit via the 11n link... This seems not to be possible... The above limit at my test is 50MBit... And i can see that the problem is _not_ the WLAN setting. I think the speed of something inside the box ?!?

Dieter


yeap its impossible with latency like nstreme dual turbo link. i try everythink (1/2 chain, mpls/bridge/wds, 802.11/nstreme and other...) at rb433/600 and p3 1.2GHz tualatin. and... 15/15 mbit both tcp with ACCEPTED latency at level of nstreme dual or 25 mbit receive/send tcp. that is all that mikrotik can achieve with "n" card sending real traffic.... with low latency.
I do not need the bridge with latency/delay of 80ms, that bridge is unusable for voip/video transmission, online gaming.

I can ONLY ACCEPTED latency at level of nstreme dual (i mean ONE DIGIT LATENCY without non stop jumping to 30ms or worst times).


uldis/normis, i can send you my configs... mayby this help you resolve the problem...

OpiumDream
newbie
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:44 am

Re: 802.11n

by OpiumDream » Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:23 pm

dieterk wrote:Next Test:

Notebook -- RB600 --11n-- RB600 -- LAN (with servers and MTS)

2 x RB600 on Desktop like told above, 270/270MBit stable n11 link. Ping delay through the routing RB600 1ms to the LAN behind. very good :) - BUT !

Starting Bandwidht Test TCP "both directions", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 23MBit/17MBit, app. 6Kpps, delay: 8-20ms (ping through link to other side)
Starting a second, prarallel Bandwith Text TCP "both directions", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 24MBit/24MBit, app. 7Kpps, delay: 15-30ms

Starting Bandwidht Test TCP "receive only", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 1MBit/32MBit, app. 4Kpps, delay: 7-11ms
Starting a second, prarallel Bandwith Text TCP "receive only", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 1MBit/40MBit, app. 5Kpps, delay: 9-19ms

Load on both RB600 app. 45%

The UDP Test (RB600_to_RB600) brings unidirect 180MBit, 15Kpps, at delay time of 82ms (limit reached = OK)
The UDP Test (RB600_to_RB600) limited at 100MBit, 8-9Kpps, at delay time of 1-9ms (middle 5ms)

... it seems there is a bottleneck inside OS, which lets the RB600 to queue packets ??? and if the deley increases, TCP throughput limit is reached quickly ...
... because the packet transport within the WLAN seems to have more capacity than the boards/SW is able to push via the WLAN ...

so i dont understand that anyone is able to transport TCP traffic of above 50MBit via the 11n link... This seems not to be possible... The above limit at my test is 50MBit... And i can see that the problem is _not_ the WLAN setting. I think the speed of something inside the box ?!?

Am i wrong ??? please give input if i have an error in my conclusion .... there is no 11n understanding problem, i think...
Please an statement from MT. Thanks !

Dieter


could you make a bandwidth test tcp and smal udp packets 100b parallel ?
post results

lawhitecross
just joined
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:46 pm

Re: 802.11n

by lawhitecross » Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:37 pm

I cant seem to get my link working on N, cant seem to push more than 20mb/s send or receive, on both maybe 4mb/s
I am using 29dbi Poynting dual feed dishs, 433AH with 1 x R52hN on each board.

My conf is as below on my AP.

set 1 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=5390 frequency-mode=\
superchannel hide-ssid=no ht-ampdu-priorities="" ht-amsdu-limit=8192 \
ht-amsdu-threshold=8192 ht-basic-mcs=mcs-0 ht-extension-channel=disabled \
ht-guard-interval=long ht-rxchains=0,1 ht-supported-mcs=\
mcs-0,mcs-7,mcs-8,mcs-14,mcs-15 ht-txchains=0,1 \
hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled hw-protection-mode=none \
hw-protection-threshold=0 hw-retries=4 l2mtu=2290 mac-address=\
00:0C:42:62:DB:6B max-station-count=2007 mode=ap-bridge mtu=1500 name=\
"Uplink" on-fail-retry-time=100ms periodic-calibration=disabled \
periodic-calibration-interval=60 preamble-mode=both \
proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 radio-name=000C4262DB6B rate-set=\
default scan-list=5300-5600 security-profile=profile1 ssid=test \
station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 supported-rates-a/g="" \
supported-rates-b="" tx-power-mode=default update-stats-interval=disabled \
wds-cost-range=50-150 wds-default-bridge=none wds-default-cost=100 \
wds-ignore-ssid=no wds-mode=disabled wmm-support=disabled
/interface wireless manual-tx-power-table
set "uplink" comment="" manual-tx-powers="1Mbps:17,2Mbps:17,5.5Mbps:17\
,11Mbps:17,6Mbps:17,9Mbps:17,12Mbps:17,18Mbps:17,24Mbps:17,36Mbps:17,48Mbp\
s:17,54Mbps:17,HT20-0:0,HT20-1:0,HT20-2:0,HT20-3:0,HT20-4:0,HT20-5:0,HT20-\
6:0,HT20-7:0,HT40-0:0,HT40-1:0,HT40-2:0,HT40-3:0,HT40-4:0,HT40-5:0,HT40-6:\
0,HT40-7:0"

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:11 pm

Hi OpiumDream !

UDP packets with 700bytes = 18Kpps, ping delay = 6-17ms (sometimes 2-3ms ?!?), cpu load 15%
UDP packets with 400bytes = 32Kpps, ping delay = 11-22ms (sometimes 2-3ms ?!?), cpu load 19%
UDP packets with 200bytes = 44Kpps, but "only" 60MBit throughput (air-limit reached), ping delay = 11-22ms
(some packet loss), cpu load 57%

the RB600 boards can do the UDP speed-test, push 44Kpps packets with 200bytes over the air at load 57% and route with a delay of 11ms all together .....
so the WLAN works very fine :-) and the OS works very hard but is able to process the requested stress ...

the only question is: where is the valve to get the speed which the 11n can do easily ;-)
it should be in packet processing to the wlan card and produces a delay which levels tcp communication to a slow speed. the boards and wlan cards have the ressources to do a good work, but something inside the OS stopps speed with queueing.

This is my mind for this problem ?!? i cannot see another explanation ..
Dieter

OpiumDream
newbie
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:44 am

Re: 802.11n

by OpiumDream » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:43 pm

dieterk wrote:Hi OpiumDream !

UDP packets with 700bytes = 18Kpps, ping delay = 6-17ms (sometimes 2-3ms ?!?), cpu load 15%
UDP packets with 400bytes = 32Kpps, ping delay = 11-22ms (sometimes 2-3ms ?!?), cpu load 19%
UDP packets with 200bytes = 44Kpps, but "only" 60MBit throughput (air-limit reached), ping delay = 11-22ms
(some packet loss), cpu load 57%

the RB600 boards can do the UDP speed-test, push 44Kpps packets with 200bytes over the air at load 57% and route with a delay of 11ms all together .....
so the WLAN works very fine :-) and the OS works very hard but is able to process the requested stress ...

the only question is: where is the valve to get the speed which the 11n can do easily ;-)
it should be in packet processing to the wlan card and produces a delay which levels tcp communication to a slow speed. the boards and wlan cards have the ressources to do a good work, but something inside the OS stopps speed with queueing.

This is my mind for this problem ?!? i cannot see another explanation ..
Dieter

try mixed tcp and udp 100b packets
60mb is not a limit
i have 80mb full duplex turbo g link

rpingar
Long time Member
Long time Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Italy

Re: 802.11n

by rpingar » Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:42 am

dieterk wrote:Next Test:

Notebook -- RB600 --11n-- RB600 -- LAN (with servers and MTS)

2 x RB600 on Desktop like told above, 270/270MBit stable n11 link. Ping delay through the routing RB600 1ms to the LAN behind. very good :) - BUT !

Starting Bandwidht Test TCP "both directions", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 23MBit/17MBit, app. 6Kpps, delay: 8-20ms (ping through link to other side)
Starting a second, prarallel Bandwith Text TCP "both directions", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 24MBit/24MBit, app. 7Kpps, delay: 15-30ms

Starting Bandwidht Test TCP "receive only", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 1MBit/32MBit, app. 4Kpps, delay: 7-11ms
Starting a second, prarallel Bandwith Text TCP "receive only", random data from Notebook to another (!) MT on LAN.
Throughput on the RB600: 1MBit/40MBit, app. 5Kpps, delay: 9-19ms

Load on both RB600 app. 45%

The UDP Test (RB600_to_RB600) brings unidirect 180MBit, 15Kpps, at delay time of 82ms (limit reached = OK)
The UDP Test (RB600_to_RB600) limited at 100MBit, 8-9Kpps, at delay time of 1-9ms (middle 5ms)

... it seems there is a bottleneck inside OS, which lets the RB600 to queue packets ??? and if the deley increases, TCP throughput limit is reached quickly ...
... because the packet transport within the WLAN seems to have more capacity than the boards/SW is able to push via the WLAN ...

so i dont understand that anyone is able to transport TCP traffic of above 50MBit via the 11n link... This seems not to be possible... The above limit at my test is 50MBit... And i can see that the problem is _not_ the WLAN setting. I think the speed of something inside the box ?!?

Am i wrong ??? please give input if i have an error in my conclusion .... there is no 11n understanding problem, i think...
Please an statement from MT. Thanks !

Dieter


I have to say that your experience pushed me to play with queue and changin the interface-queue of the wireless N, but i don't see any particular benefit shorting the queue on the wireless interface, I noted a little lower jitter but with some more packet loss on have charged N link. As i was expecting but this change.

Hope MT can improve the packet processing over N link soon. In fact I am pretty frustated by this situation.

regards
Ros

User avatar
jrecabeitia
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:26 pm
Location: Villa Dolores - Cordoba - Argentina

Re: 802.11n

by jrecabeitia » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:18 am

I accidentally commented a problem that I was presented with a link PTP r52N plates.
My setup was based on the selection of waveband N.
Change in the 5GHz and lost remote connection. So far so good. But I accidentally set the side stay bridge 5Ghz N only am station-side and 5 GHz and the connection works normally. This is what is very bad and may be a clue to why it does not work correctly in N.

User avatar
exe
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: 802.11n

by exe » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:23 pm

I 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.
Serbian Mikrotik Distributor - exeshop.rs

gringoZ
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: 802.11n

by gringoZ » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:33 pm

exe wrote:I 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.


please show screenshot with pings/lattency at 50mbit tcp bOTH

User avatar
exe
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: 802.11n

by exe » Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:18 pm

We cannot dismantle some live production links to show you bandwidth test like you want. So here is example with other link:

50/30 about 6km:
mtsparklanrb800-6km.jpg
mtsparklanrb800-6km.jpg (205.19 KiB) Viewed 6439 times


60/30 about 6km:
mtsparklanrb800-6km-2.jpg
mtsparklanrb800-6km-2.jpg (203.97 KiB) Viewed 6439 times
Serbian Mikrotik Distributor - exeshop.rs

2jarek
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: 802.11n

by 2jarek » Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:34 pm

yada yada............. users use torrents, varez & voip no 1500b tcp one stream.

gringoZ
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: 802.11n

by gringoZ » Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:39 pm

exe wrote:We cannot dismantle some live production links to show you bandwidth test like you want. So here is example with other link:

50/30 about 6km:
mtsparklanrb800-6km.jpg





where is wds at screenshot in interface list?
did you try r52n mpci?

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:28 am

Ok, internal traffic (wlan,wlan) with bandwidth test is not really relevant...
real traffic or small packets via the _whole_ devices (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) show the problems.

nstreme has better delay time (better packet handling?) but is very unstable at 11n and not really supported. i can only get "stable" links on nstreme and 11n with fixed ack-times, data-rate-settings and noise-immuity. but on limits the nstreme link drops quickly...

i can get stable 11n links only on standard wlan mode, but delay on pass-through-traffic is too high, so tcp stopps throughput quickly... if the wlan-interface queue is shortened (thanks to Ros), the packet loss increases. so the delay is produced directly from the wlan-queue because it gets to limits... i also think that the problem is even present on 11a (and on other modes??), but the possible traffic wasn't ever high enough to show this problem clearly enough. nstreme performs better, and so _i_ get good performance on 11a (with standard mode i had also performance problems on my links ...!!!).

so i still see the real problem on packet forwarding to wlan driver and processing them. 11n wlan itselve seems to be fast enough (see results) to push the number of packets quickly over the air. so there is no real wlan-driver problem or a wlan-setting problem (at most links) ...

maybe RB800 is fast enough to keep the delay time low if there is the bottleneck on OS ... because of faster cpu and therefore better packet processing... and i only tried RB600 and RB433AH. But even RB433AH or RB600 should be fast enough to forward the packets quickly on low delay, because they can do this job easily on lan-interfaces... why not on wlan interfaces ???

this is my mind... has anyone a better view ?? what says the develpment team of MT ? are we really on the wrong way of understanding this long-time-problems of 11n ...

Dieter

WirelessRudy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: 802.11n

by WirelessRudy » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:55 am

exe wrote:We cannot dismantle some live production links to show you bandwidth test like you want.



?? Your examples show bandwidth tests from the rb's making the link. Not the optimum but OK, better than I ever reached.
But why not run a bandwidth test over your running ´live´ link? Just run it from routers outside the link (RB-test <->RB-Link>>>><<<<RB-Link<->RB-test). Make these "RB-test" boards fast ones, 433AH or better and run the tcp test, even when other ´normal´ traffic is around. Or transfer some big files up and down. And then show us the throughput over the wireless or ether port. Not the test throughput.
It only takes a minute which is long enough to show us screen shots of your link! If you have QoS properly configured on your network/link users probably won't notice you have don the test.

If we still see the impressive result I am really impressed.

Other remarks:
- According MT WDS doesn't work well on ´n´. It is been repeated several times here. Why should in now do on yours?
(And your examples don't show they are wrong. You made a test without WDS)
- Have you tried difference between ´nstreme´ on your ´live´ link enabled and disabled under idle conditions? I am still worried that under idle conditions ´nstreme´ is degreasing performance of link.

Can you please give us some more info on the wireless part.:
- Which power settings on cards (which cards?)
- receiving signal strengths (and are they fluctuating?)
- Connection rates. Do they stay stable under high and low data load?
- Environment: Free LOS? Fresnel? Other same band, or even same frequency radio's around?
- Only one card in the board or maybe second (or third)?

Before we readers can decide if your experience is real and usable we need lots more info.

I tried your settings, on much shorter distant link, 500mtr. as I did many times before with other settings, but 18/18 is about the limit. But OK, I am in a saturated air spectrum and even at such short distance with R52n card and 25dBi antenna can't get no more then -70 signal at the other ends..... (But ´a´ link running parallel, other channel, 15dBi ant and 433 (no AH) has no problem keeping 100-90% CCQ with 54Mb connection rate and even when I ´pump´ 25Mb over the link ping stays below 5 on average...)

And what did you mean with "Signal must not be higher than -65 ... "?
You mend not "better than" or "not stronger than" -65? So -60 or "lower" (-50, -40 etc) is advised?
Or did you mean "no more signal" than -65? So -70, -75 etc. is preferred??

I presume the first: "Not higher or worse then -65". So "lower or better than -65". (Thus -60.-55 etc)
Reason for my question for clarification is that your post put some things up side down. You make a statement about what is possible and then give an example not underlining this. Confusing as some other already noticed.

Only if we have all facts clear we can declare your statement as a bonus to this topic and us all.

asdewq
just joined
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:15 am

Re: 802.11n

by asdewq » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:23 am

Hello, im new on this forum but using MT for a few years... I have one test N link in production use and there is big problems with jitter but... after post from exe i try his config - with WDS ands if i compare ap-client and wds link wds working much better. 11N on MT must be on totally free channel (nothing else cant be scanned, on freq use must be 0!!) so problem can be on small noise immunity too.. problem with driver desing? i dont know... but... on PtP link with WDS i have now nice latency (0-2ms) on 30-40Mbit with bt, 10-20Mbit of it was live traffic.

Insider
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Czech

NstremeDual Issue

by Insider » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:36 pm

Hi, I have several issues question to MT development lounge.
We are doing quite good about links with N draft stands in 5GHz approx 45mbit both ways simultaneously in HD regime. But this is not our business.
I need help with Nstreme dual business.
I do use 2xRB800 with 4.5ROS
I met real issue about full duplex regime using N cards.
1/ With a simple layer (just one HT chain enabled) and 20MHz channel we do 65mbitHT on HW layer, works good bringing over 50mbit in TCP, which makes me happy. Either other way is linked by 65HTmbit regime..
My first question for MT Staff is: Why it pushes only 10 000 packages per second as max? Should I use some VPN to bundle it? Or just the drivers are not still ready.
My second question, which makes me really ill: If I use 2 cards, should I get twice the thruput on other side same time? NO? Why? Please help, I do understand, that tcp has its internal load, which lower the net thruput, but I estimate, that I should be able to do at least 45 mbits both ways simultaneously, What I am getting is 45/6mbits and that is it.. Or 35/35mbits with average latency of 10ms.. With ICMP flood thruput.

If MT will sort this out, I have ready transvertors for 10 and UP GHz working 8)
Frequency microwave transvertors, design, development, manufacture
http://Pojitko.cz

User avatar
exe
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: 802.11n

by exe » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:39 am

gringoZ wrote:where is wds at screenshot in interface list?
did you try r52n mpci?


This is screenshot of other part of link with station wds.

gringoZ wrote:did you try r52n mpci?


No.

dieterk wrote:Ok, internal traffic (wlan,wlan) with bandwidth test is not really relevant...
real traffic or small packets via the _whole_ devices (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) show the problems.


There is no problem with any kind of traffic with our setup.

dieterk wrote:nstreme has better delay time (better packet handling?) but is very unstable at 11n and not really supported. i can only get "stable" links on nstreme and 11n with fixed ack-times, data-rate-settings and noise-immuity. but on limits the nstreme link drops quickly...


With our stability is very good... No issues. Don't enable anything which is not by default. Just use default settings and our setup.

dieterk wrote:maybe RB800 is fast enough to keep the delay time low if there is the bottleneck on OS ... because of faster cpu and therefore better packet processing...


No problem with 433ah and 411ah, we tried this also.. works perfect... But RB800 is the best.

WirelessRudy wrote:According MT WDS doesn't work well on ´n´. It is been repeated several times here. Why should in now do on yours?


Because Nstreme only works with WDS in 4.5 ... If you disable nstreme, link is not working. I do not know why, ask mikrotik: )

WirelessRudy wrote:Have you tried difference between ´nstreme´ on your ´live´ link enabled and disabled under idle conditions? I am still worried that under idle conditions ´nstreme´ is degreasing performance of link.


As I mention, our setup will not work if you disable nstreme. Performance is great. Just try it and test it. Then come here and tell me is it the best setup for now? :)) Also when you test it, make sure to test stability, you will see that it is better then dual nstreme 802.11a...

WirelessRudy wrote:Which power settings on cards (which cards?)


SparkLAN WMIA-198N and WPEA-110N. Default in mikrotik: 30-63mW.

WirelessRudy wrote:receiving signal strengths (and are they fluctuating?)


No.

WirelessRudy wrote:Connection rates. Do they stay stable under high and low data load?


MCS's are stable, but you need to find the best combination for each link depending on distance.

***************

You have so many other questions... Please try our setup and then report. You will be surprised.
Serbian Mikrotik Distributor - exeshop.rs

WirelessRudy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: 802.11n

by WirelessRudy » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:01 am

exe wrote:You have so many other questions... Please try our setup and then report. You will be surprised.


Well, tried exactly your settings on 800mtr link. Signal is only -70 - -75!!! (With 21dB dish! Put normal 802.11 card and signals are around -45!!) and had the link running.
Started bandwidth test with 1/1Mb running
Then started to push up.
Reaching 15Mb was maximum while latency stayed < 7ms.
The moment I tried to push a bit more traffic one end router 433 (no AH) collapsed.
Router crashed, takes about 10 mins to recover. During this it is shown in wired connected neighbour with same network IP but not able to reach. Not even with mac. No ping, nothing.
Have to wait 10 mins and then router comes back up.

Look at log, is telling me nothing more that the router shut down due power outage.

But in looking at the other end during the 10 mins out of reach I do see the radio trying to make contact after 5 mins. Only after several attempts and 5 mins later link is established again...

MT reading this will ask supout.rif but it is not generated by watchdog.

WirelessRudy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: 802.11n

by WirelessRudy » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:12 am

Have been doing extensive reading to find out more about 802.11n.

One thing I came across is that on short backhaul links with high converged (high dB gain) antenna's (parabolic) and free LOS probably the protocol is not able to produce any more then normal legacy link would do in same condition.
Reason is that multiplex stream is hard to produce under such circumstances.

Since I am shooting with a 8 meter clearance over hard tiled concrete constructed houses I was thinking of actually pointing both side antenna's down a little so the radio beam is bouncing more (and reflecting) over the adjacent roofs and walls and thus producing more multipath radio streams.

Or maybe it is better to use lesser converged beam antenna's, even just some omni's?

Anyone any experience or say about it?

This is the piece of text I have been reading:
"An NxM MIMO system has N transmitters and M receivers (Figure 1). Signals from each transmitter reach each receiver via a different path in the channel. MIMO works best if these paths are spatially distinct and each is capable of carrying its own data stream. If the radios are within line of sight of each other, MIMO can deteriorate into the traditional single-stream transmission, SISO (single input, single output)."

[http://www.tmworld.com/article/323640-Testing_IEEE_802_11n.php]

JorgeAmaral
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:53 am
Location: /ip route add type=blackhole

Re: 802.11n

by JorgeAmaral » Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:48 am

WirelessRudy wrote:
exe wrote:You have so many other questions... Please try our setup and then report. You will be surprised.


Well, tried exactly your settings on 800mtr link. Signal is only -70 - -75!!! (With 21dB dish! Put normal 802.11 card and signals are around -45!!) and had the link running.
Started bandwidth test with 1/1Mb running
Then started to push up.
Reaching 15Mb was maximum while latency stayed < 7ms.
The moment I tried to push a bit more traffic one end router 433 (no AH) collapsed.
Router crashed, takes about 10 mins to recover. During this it is shown in wired connected neighbour with same network IP but not able to reach. Not even with mac. No ping, nothing.
Have to wait 10 mins and then router comes back up.

Look at log, is telling me nothing more that the router shut down due power outage.

But in looking at the other end during the 10 mins out of reach I do see the radio trying to make contact after 5 mins. Only after several attempts and 5 mins later link is established again...

MT reading this will ask supout.rif but it is not generated by watchdog.


I think your wireless card is damaged.

Can you test with another one?

Best regards,

Jorge
Jorge Amaral

TR0091

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:54 am

ok, exe !

you are right ! this was the valve to speed the link to that what it can do ...
i can do a tcp-test with 65MBit/25MBit via the whole config (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) and have pings with 1-3ms
i can copy files nearly as fast as on LAN !
i can run tcp-BT and file copy parallel and have 82MBit/30MBit with ping delay of 1-5ms !!

this was the only config i did not test, because earlier versions did not work like this and everyone says that WDS is not possible to work :)
-- i use RB600 and R52N now --

in my routed-test-config on desktop, i have switched now simply to nstreme and WDS, did put my ips from wlan interface to bridge interface and had best performance i have ever seen ...

MT, the miracle is solved ! please check packet processing on _not_ WDS and _not_ nstreme ! everything else than WDS with nstreme doesn't work speedy and produces delay - it depends not on wlan drivers and special settings and 11n understanding problems ...

Dieter

User avatar
exe
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: 802.11n

by exe » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:31 pm

dieterk wrote:ok, exe !

you are right ! this was the valve to speed the link to that what it can do ...
i can do a tcp-test with 65MBit/25MBit via the whole config (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) and have pings with 1-3ms
i can copy files nearly as fast as on LAN !
i can run tcp-BT and file copy parallel and have 82MBit/30MBit with ping delay of 1-5ms !!


Great! You see now how 802.11n works!!!
I hope others can follow your example to test it in this way with our config!
Serbian Mikrotik Distributor - exeshop.rs

rpingar
Long time Member
Long time Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Italy

Re: 802.11n

by rpingar » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:09 pm

exe wrote:
dieterk wrote:ok, exe !

you are right ! this was the valve to speed the link to that what it can do ...
i can do a tcp-test with 65MBit/25MBit via the whole config (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) and have pings with 1-3ms
i can copy files nearly as fast as on LAN !
i can run tcp-BT and file copy parallel and have 82MBit/30MBit with ping delay of 1-5ms !!


Unbelivable!!!!!!
IT WORKS ALSO FOR ME!!! after months of problems seems WDS (that could not work fine with N) fixed the packet problem!!!!!!!!

Many Thanks EXE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards
Ros

JrGong
just joined
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: 802.11n

by JrGong » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:19 pm

HaQs wrote:OK :) But why ubiquiti "N" working fine with simple configuration ?

Maybe MT add wizard to simple configure 802.11n ?



Ubiquiti doesn't actually support 802.11n.......
http://www.ubnt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19949

It's actually the reason I am here. As much as I don't want to have to deal with licenses and such, I want a product that is going to be current for the foreseeable future.

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:19 pm

yeah!!!
it also works fine on my production link with MPLS if i put the communications IPs for MPLS into the WDS bridge !!! ;-)
real traffic, which comes from hundreds of customers at 50MBit/20MBit with app. 10Kpps on this 5km 11n Link with RB433AH on 40MHz no problem ...
CPU load goes sometimes to 100% (i think because of nstreme eats much cpu) but performance is very good.

Thanks to EXE for this tip !! This work-arround brings the real 11n speed !!

Dieter

WirelessRudy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: 802.11n

by WirelessRudy » Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:38 am

dieterk wrote:yeah!!!
it also works fine on my production link with MPLS if i put the communications IPs for MPLS into the WDS bridge !!! ;-)

Dieter, you mean you put the vpls interface in the bridge on the AP-Bridge side?
Do you also have the wlan port in the bridge?

On the station nothing changes apart from "station mode" >>> "station-wds" mode?

Rudy

marek001
newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 6:14 pm

Re: 802.11n

by marek001 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:02 am

dieterk wrote:ok, exe !

you are right ! this was the valve to speed the link to that what it can do ...
i can do a tcp-test with 65MBit/25MBit via the whole config (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) and have pings with 1-3ms
i can copy files nearly as fast as on LAN !
i can run tcp-BT and file copy parallel and have 82MBit/30MBit with ping delay of 1-5ms !!

this was the only config i did not test, because earlier versions did not work like this and everyone says that WDS is not possible to work :)
-- i use RB600 and R52N now --

in my routed-test-config on desktop, i have switched now simply to nstreme and WDS, did put my ips from wlan interface to bridge interface and had best performance i have ever seen ...

MT, the miracle is solved ! please check packet processing on _not_ WDS and _not_ nstreme ! everything else than WDS with nstreme doesn't work speedy and produces delay - it depends not on wlan drivers and special settings and 11n understanding problems ...

Dieter


how was the signal on that link?? and have you tried to push to max tcp speed??
we have on our some link's with nstream enabled and in turbo-a tcp speed like 48/30 Mbit..and if this is the max tcp throughput what can be achieved ,then this is disappointed..

as my N cards arrive i will test them..

tnx
for the good configuration...

bye

WirelessRudy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: 802.11n

by WirelessRudy » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:44 am

OK, I tried the "exe" settings as well and it worked for me too!

I still have to fine tune which mcs settings are best but OK, it's almost 4 AM and a new day is approaching....

I have now only 1,2,3,4,5,6 enabled on both ends and can maintain a 80Mb tcp data througput on the link while ping stays below 8ms.

I was not able to run mpls over the wds bridge. Got only one way traffic! So I threw it away!

When I enable all mcs values and no limit in the bandwidth test max. throughput (test between 2 rb1000's connected to the 2 rb433AH maintaining the link) I come close to the wire max. of 100Mb. but any total speeds above 80Mb sees the latency going up.
At 90Mb latency become in 200-350ms range and even saw at times data flow completely drop. But on a 10 mins run got 96Mb total throughput in one direction!
One way direction can have a bit more speed then the other direction. some 10% difference. I have to look into that.

But what an improvement! Before I was happy with 20Mb's total!

I'll play more later with several wireless settings (noise immunity? I have enabled, maybe better without?) and others.
I am also going to run cat6e cables and from the rb433AH's maybe bonding two interfaces to the rb1000's.

One thing I noticed while playing on this live link is in the middle of the night, when only some kbps of traffic around, it looks like traffic needs a bit of a kick start. When browsing it takes a second that nothing happens and suddenly everything goes flashing fast. Even new pages. But then I led the link become quiet and renewing already opened pages (so IP is still in cache) takes again a little time to start. But ok, that can also have many other reasons. Like I said, still some fine tuning to do.... :)

But good work done so far "exe"

MT, this guy should be awarded! (Maybe hire him! He solved a problem you guys obviously were struggling with for months....) ;-)

changeip
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:22 pm

Re: 802.11n

by changeip » Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:39 am

so in plain routed mode the issue persist, but without wds it doesnt? what about CCQ, is this affected by this setting? Seems unrelated, but curious.
Colo and Wholesale Bandwidth Available! Sales at SanDiegoBroadband dot com

rpingar
Long time Member
Long time Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Italy

Re: 802.11n

by rpingar » Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:52 am

changeip wrote:so in plain routed mode the issue persist, but without wds it doesnt? what about CCQ, is this affected by this setting? Seems unrelated, but curious.


in routed mode just use the bridge interface instead the wlan1.
on bridge there is only one port the wla1n putting the ip on the bridge interface.
So you can workaround the packetization issue.

I see the cpu skyrocketing to 100% on high load but it is just a matter of power, we can scale with rb800.....

Then to MT guys..........hope you can fix the issue to have better performace without wds.

regards
Ros

User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
 
Posts: 19335
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: 802.11n

by normis » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:10 am

I read these new posts and though to my self - am I awake or still dreaming :D So, very cool that you found a working scenario. We will continue to work on the rest of the modes. Thanks for sharing, exe!
No answer to your question? How to write posts

User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
 
Posts: 19335
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: 802.11n

by normis » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:47 am

We have an idea.

- Again turn off the WDS so that your link is not so good
- Then make a SIMPLE QUEUE with some abnormally high limitation on any interface in the router (ethernet will do, limit it at some 200Mbit so that it doesn't affect you), and
- see if wireless connection improves.

Additionally you have to change under "/queue interface" interface queue to something else and then undo the action, so SFQ really kicks in. It has to be done after each reboot.

We found that there could be an issue with one driver that doesn't load, and making one queue would call it up, increasing wireless performance.

We will include the fix in v4.7 if this helps.
No answer to your question? How to write posts

ste
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:21 am

Re: 802.11n

by ste » Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:53 am

@Normis

Another Idea: Can the trial and error with data-rates done by ROS?
Especialy for PTMP when another CPE kicks in situation changes.

So some mechanism which watches CCQ and limits used data rates
to get more stability/less retransmit in links.
May be this mechanism is triggered by a client connecting/disconnecting
and then at a configurable time-intervall.

In my 11n tests I see if I allow a data rate which is to high the
link suffers very badly.

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:32 am

WirelessRudy wrote:
dieterk wrote:yeah!!!
it also works fine on my production link with MPLS if i put the communications IPs for MPLS into the WDS bridge !!! ;-)

Dieter, you mean you put the vpls interface in the bridge on the AP-Bridge side?
Do you also have the wlan port in the bridge?

On the station nothing changes apart from "station mode" >>> "station-wds" mode?

Rudy

Hi Rudy, you have to do this on Both sides !!

1) simply create a bridge on both sides, eg.: bridge-wlan
2) change to WDS on both sides: dynamic with this bridge.
3) move communications IPs which have been on wlan to bridge-wlan - both sides
4) change client side from station to station-wds mode

this works with all configs: routing, mpls, ethernet_over_ip tunnel, .... :-)
nice workarround ! nstreme optimization can be a little bit tricky to get really a stable link ...
rgds
Dieter

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:10 pm

@normis:

i have tried queue, something changes but its not clear how it depends on ...
but there are more things wrong than "only" queue: even WDS with standard 11n brings no benefit.

ONLY nstreme on use with WDS brings the packets to fly over the air ...
and nstreme wlan-setting for 11n is tricky and should be made easier to get good results. we have to disable all the lower speeds, because e.g. nstreme likes to drop down the speed on wlan link and goes up slowly, so you will not get full speed if you don't optimize... only 11n standard mode seems to keep the highest speed on wlan, but packet throughput is very low !

it should be best if someone of MT development team puts 2xRB800 with R52n cards on his desktop, read our forum, makes a link without antennas, produce TCP packet flow via the whole equipment (lan-wlan-wlan-lan) with 2 additionally fast devices from outside. parallel ping through the link shows the delay very clearly.

and the problems will be seen quickly without spending any time on outdoor links !!!

thanks for solving this wlan problems quickly !
Dieter

lekozs
newbie
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:49 pm

Re: 802.11n

by lekozs » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:36 pm

normis wrote:I read these new posts and though to my self - am I awake or still dreaming :D So, very cool that you found a working scenario. We will continue to work on the rest of the modes. Thanks for sharing, exe!


Well... the Wiki ( http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Transpare ... using_MPLS ) clearly states that the WDS approach has some issues with 802.11n links> "802.11n speed is limited over WDS bridges" furthermore --> "this [MPLS/VPLS] method doesn't have such limitations"

This is the ONLY reason I did not even THINK about trying WDS with a 802.11n link! :(
So... I learned my lesson... Do not believe everything that is written in the Wiki...
This WDS method is working for me too... I don't know what are those limitations the Wiki is mentioning. I was reaching 122Mbps (heavy torrent downloads) yet the ping was somewhere around 2-3ms!

OTOH I decided to test this MPLS/VPLS transparent bridging on the ethernet ports of two RB600s (laptop-ether1-ether3-lan(MPLS/VPLS)lan-ether3-ether1-laptop) In other words I simply replaced the wireless cards and the 802.11n link with a LAN cable connected to ether3 ports.
It works flawlessly!
So - I assume - the problem is with the MPLS/VPLS implementation(?) over 802.11n links...

KillerOPS
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: 802.11n

by KillerOPS » Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:52 pm

i'm just wondering why the last page of info didn't come from normis or some other mikrotik insider. Hey, mikrotik ppl, you should know what your code does.

WirelessRudy
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Spain

Re: 802.11n

by WirelessRudy » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:07 am

lekozs wrote:So... I learned my lesson... Do not believe everything that is written in the Wiki...

That lesson is learned long ago.
Some MT guru should go with a comb through the wiki and filter out all the rubble that is put there and only creates more confusion.They should enforce a policy that any Wiki can only be published when confirmed and tested by tech. dept. And they have to be simple and explanatory for the unknown.

Example:
MT should make Wiki on how to a step by step set up a ´n´ link and mention and explain all variables in the wireless section that have influence.
The examples present are at least "incomplete" and outdated.
Is somebody checking on the value and/or validity of these Wiki's anyway?

changeip
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:22 pm

Re: 802.11n

by changeip » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:27 am

im having the issues with N in plain old routed mode, no bridges at all, no wds, no mpls, just ap-bridge to station with IPs on each end...
Colo and Wholesale Bandwidth Available! Sales at SanDiegoBroadband dot com

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:26 am

Hi changeip !

The problem should be the packet transport inside MT-OS to the WLAN drivers or via the drivers on all wlan modes except nstreme+WDS...
The ONLY workarround at this time is to use WDS in combination of nstreme !!!

BUT the good news: You can use this workarround on all other implemenations ....

bridging, routing, MPLS, EOIP, ....

1) switch to nstreme and WDS (bridge+station wds) on both sides and do WLAN optimizations as described by "exe" above. even if you use routed mode or MPLS or anything else ... the key is to put the link into the WDS bridge with nstreme and the communications IPs too !!!... Put only the LAN to the bridge too, if you want to impment a real bridge via the whole device (!!!).
2) put your communications IPs (as you had at wlan before, e.g. IPs for routing) onto that bridge, which is now connected to WDS... you always have to do this on both sides !!

and each config works with the workarround of WDS as requested and (!!) with full 11n speed ;-)

good luck !
Dieter

changeip
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 5:22 pm

Re: 802.11n

by changeip » Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:57 am

yes, i can confirm it helps in my situation to enable WDS+NStreme. All other settings remain yet the CCQ is much improved. I get a solid connection and pretty stable. I still don't get close to A turbo speeds, but this link also doesnt have the best fresnel. Latency went from 400-800ms to 20-30ms when running bandwidth test and performing a ping thru it.

My problem is that I have a few ubnt units associated that can't use nstreme, so i have to revert back to no nstreme... : (
Colo and Wholesale Bandwidth Available! Sales at SanDiegoBroadband dot com

gringoZ
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: 802.11n

by gringoZ » Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:27 am

exe wrote:We cannot dismantle some live production links to show you bandwidth test like you want. So here is example with other link:

50/30 about 6km:

60/30 about 6km:



i tried your config, i can't set signal worst than -56, you suggest not higher than -65:

mt-mt.png
mt-mt.png (129.39 KiB) Viewed 5813 times

good results with small latency (btest from mt to mt, ip 10.10.10.x is assigned to mt lan)

but

pc-mt-mt-pc.png
pc-mt-mt-pc.png (148.69 KiB) Viewed 5813 times

bad throughput with small latency (btest from laptop-mt to mt-laptop)

btest laptop-laptop i had "full" wire speed

where is bootleneck?

dieterk
newbie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

by dieterk » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:10 pm

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 ...

gearth
just joined
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:49 am

Re: 802.11n

by gearth » Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:46 am

We received a pair of 433UAH's and a pair of R52n's a few days ago to test (our first real world run with MT). I'm really quite pleased with the results and have actually routed some of our existing links through this one.

Currently, the ptp link is ~38km apart with 36" 32db dual-pol dishes at each end. Granted, there is still much to learn as I am accustomed to using different gear but I think that results speak the loudest. Using the built-in bandwidth test, I am able to achieve consistently between 160-170mbs with fairly decent latency.. sure, there are the occasional ping timeouts while running the bandwidth test but this type of traffic also does not reflect real world usage, "soaked" links should be expected to cause a ping to fail every now and then.

At the far end of the link there is a linux box running so that I can use wget to download a large and very compressed file through the link to represent something close to real throughput and it sits at a steady 80-90mbps which I find very impressive. Maybe this could be better with GbE but if demand rises past what is available then we have no problem spending the money to deploy additional BH links and have comfort knowing that we're not pushing cpu and individual radio usage to the point where performance and stability starts to go backwards.

As a note to those interested, I like to test throughput with my own test file with one end running linux and apache and the other end running linux and wget. The test file is simply the latest linux bz2 source download compounded as so 'cat linux-xxx.xxx.bz2 >> test.zip' and keep doing so until it is the size you'd like, I normally do this about 20 times to wind up with a file somewhere around 1GB so that it can download for a while and get a fairly clear idea for throughput and any jitter that there may be.

Keep up the good work guys, I'll keep tinkering.

Here's a screen cap of the udp test.
Attachments
433uah-r52n_38km.png
433UAH R52n -> 433UAH R52n -- 38km
433uah-r52n_38km.png (36.52 KiB) Viewed 5599 times

marek001
newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 6:14 pm

Re: 802.11n

by marek001 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:41 pm

NetTraptor wrote:
avantwireless wrote:May I ask your antenna configuration? Spacings and such


We got a guy that does our dual polarity feeders. Still testing configs but we are satisfied with a certain design that we are going to run a few batches.
We tested those with 80 and 100cm sat dishes. I guess a dual polarity Pac can do the job as well.


hi

i have try'd your config and when i add the value the card's just don't want to connect...

can you pls give me some screenshot from your winbox?? and sam ss from bandwith test, i just can't belive you got such great bandwith :)

tnx
bye

angboontiong
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:59 am

Re: 802.11n

by angboontiong » Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:49 pm

I would say, the bandwidth test with UDP is always not the right way since that just "act like a show".

The best proven for 11N still based on the real time traffic.

  Previous   Next
940 posts   •   Page 14 of 19   •   1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 16 guests

It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:36 am