This makes no sense.
See the reported noise floor? And the connected signal strength? I get great ping times and can push though 2+ Mbps both ways. I’m not complaining, but I just spent several weeks trying to get it to work on channel 2437 with a noise floor of -78 and got worse throughput and it dropped on and off.
Is this noise floor reporting not accurate on the SR9s?
I’ve seen noise floors in the -32dB range for the 900mhz system we tested and was still able to achieve ~10mbps UDP through the CPE.
I think its just because they havent finished the support for the SR9’s. I’m assuming this will be fixed in 2.10.. They just kind of patched 2.9.xx to support the SR9.
Maybe someone from Mikrotik can confirm/correct this.
[admin@xxx int wir reg pr st
0 interface=wlan1 radio-name=“xxxxx” mac-address=00:02:6F:22:FB:D7 ap=no
wds=no rx-rate=24Mbps tx-rate=24Mbps packets=44824951,49189920
bytes=2782473274,2865637695 frames=44824951,49196009
frame-bytes=2513560102,2570559080 hw-frames=44824968,49196016
hw-frame-bytes=3589370399,3751263478 uptime=3w4h50m57s last-activity=20ms
signal-strength=-85dBm@18Mbps signal-to-noise=-11dB
strength-at-rates=-85dBm@6Mbps 20s750ms,-84dBm@9Mbps 3w4h48m1s590ms,-
84dBm@12Mbps 3d22h20m10s680ms,-85dBm@18Mbps 30ms,-
84dBm@24Mbps 20ms
tx-signal-strength=-66dBm tx-ccq=74% rx-ccq=41% p-throughput=20035
ack-timeout=45 distance=45 nstreme=no framing-mode=none
routeros-version=“2.9.28” last-ip=202.9.224.27 802.1x-port-enabled=yes
authentication-type=none encryption=none compression=no
\
int wir mon 0 once
status: running-ap
band: 5ghz
frequency: 5765MHz
noise-floor: -74dBm
overall-tx-ccq: 75%
registered-clients: 1
authenticated-clients: 1
current-ack-timeout: 45
current-distance: 45
nstreme: no
current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:16,9Mbps:16,12Mbps:16,18Mbps:16,24Mbps:16,
36Mbps:15,48Mbps:14,54Mbps:13
notify-external-fdb: no
I dont understand the noise floor either. Here Im getting 24mb on a 5ghz
circuit with -11db S/N Ratio. The Signal strength is -84db the noise floor
-74db so the sum in int wir reg pr st is correct, but theres nothing wrong
with the link performance wise. The other end is fine.[/u]