Using 2 Cm9 Artheros 5213 cards on RouterBoard 500.
Followed nstreme2 setup according to manual, but no success.
could problem be that my software is ver 2.8 and routerOS is ver 2.9 beta?
Nstreme2 is working between the v2.8 and v2.9rc.
First try to make 2 individual Point-to-point links, to check if the antennas are aligned correctly and you got the signal. Then you can try make the nstreme2 configuration. Try to post the configuration in the forum or you can try to send the email to support@mikrotik.com. When sending an email, make the support output files from both routers and include them with the email.
First try to make 2 individual Point-to-point links, to check if the antennas are aligned correctly and you got the signal. Then you can try make the nstreme2 configuration. Try to post the configuration in the forum or you can try to send the email to support@mikrotik.com. When sending an email, make the support output files from both routers and include them with the email.
HI,
I suggest you to use 2.9 version.
Nstreme2 is great protocol but I think needed also to have DFS support for eliminate selection of frequencies.
However for use with Nstreme2 I have developed an single full duplex dipole for use with standard parabolic offset antenna (sat standard) without use two antennas for obtain full duplex, obtain up to 60Mbps in TCP mode with an distance of 17Km. For test I use 800MHz processor with PADOC sytem.
Regards
Xandor
I suggest you to use 2.9 version.
Nstreme2 is great protocol but I think needed also to have DFS support for eliminate selection of frequencies.
However for use with Nstreme2 I have developed an single full duplex dipole for use with standard parabolic offset antenna (sat standard) without use two antennas for obtain full duplex, obtain up to 60Mbps in TCP mode with an distance of 17Km. For test I use 800MHz processor with PADOC sytem.
Regards
Xandor
I've setup two RB532's with four CM9 radios and see 22-23MB FDX with the MT bandwidth test.HI,
I suggest you to use 2.9 version.
Nstreme2 is great protocol but I think needed also to have DFS support for eliminate selection of frequencies.
However for use with Nstreme2 I have developed an single full duplex dipole for use with standard parabolic offset antenna (sat standard) without use two antennas for obtain full duplex, obtain up to 60Mbps in TCP mode with an distance of 17Km. For test I use 800MHz processor with PADOC sytem.
Regards
Xandor
The real disappointing news is once I bridge NStreme1 to Ether1 on each side thoughput drops off and becomes irregular. How can I setup a NStreme2 "dumb bridge" and keep the 22-23MB of throughput?
Thanks,
Brad
So you can run a MT bandwidth test with TCP and both selected and you'll see 22-23Mb running in both directions? WHen I tried this test using RB532s running at 333MHz with 5212 cards with NStreme2 (not in turbo mode) I only got 12MBit in both directions. Can you post your "exported" config?
THanks,
Ken
THanks,
Ken
Hello Ken,So you can run a MT bandwidth test with TCP and both selected and you'll see 22-23Mb running in both directions? WHen I tried this test using RB532s running at 333MHz with 5212 cards with NStreme2 (not in turbo mode) I only got 12MBit in both directions. Can you post your "exported" config?
THanks,
Ken
No, the 22-23MB FDX was using UDP...TCP I think I saw approx 12MB FDX as well.
What power supply are you using? I am using the wisp-router PoE 48VDC .35A version. I am able to run a MT bandwidth test and cause the RB532 to reboot. I replaced the PoE power supply with an older RouterBoard 48VDC .62A power supply and used the DC jack. The larger PS and DC Jack combo helped the reboot problem a little as I can run the BW test a bit longer before it reboots the far side.
Going to try another RB532 just to see if by chance I have a bad RB532. Sure would have been nice if MT left the CF card on the RB532...now in order to change boards I have to program a new unit rather than just swapping CF cards. <sigh>
Brad
HI,
With RB532 you can't reach more of 24-25Mbps in TCP mode because you have only 333MHz processor, if you want more wireles performances you need an powerful processor and an best system for power up the wireless system.
At this time we have in test PADOC system (Power and Data Over Cable), with this system you can power up 3 wireless systems with big processor at the same time.
Regards
Xandor
With RB532 you can't reach more of 24-25Mbps in TCP mode because you have only 333MHz processor, if you want more wireles performances you need an powerful processor and an best system for power up the wireless system.
At this time we have in test PADOC system (Power and Data Over Cable), with this system you can power up 3 wireless systems with big processor at the same time.
Regards
Xandor
-
-
wildbill442
Forum Guru
- Posts: 1055
- Joined:
- Location: Sacramento, CA
HI,
In fact RB532 work to 333MHz not 400MHz. I don't know about future versions of RB532. However you you need more of 30Mbps over wireless link you need to use minimum 600MHz processor.
In this way you can use double pOE system or other PADOC system.
PADOC will have small dimensions, low cost and BASE and MASTER modules. BASE will be power supply, data e power sections integrated, MASTER will be one circuit very little dimension for data and power with 5/12V dc output.
Regards
Xandor
In fact RB532 work to 333MHz not 400MHz. I don't know about future versions of RB532. However you you need more of 30Mbps over wireless link you need to use minimum 600MHz processor.
In this way you can use double pOE system or other PADOC system.
PADOC will have small dimensions, low cost and BASE and MASTER modules. BASE will be power supply, data e power sections integrated, MASTER will be one circuit very little dimension for data and power with 5/12V dc output.
Regards
Xandor
So far I am only getting 23Mbit TCP (I can never get UDP numbers through our network even with multiple connections). Are there any tips on how to get the higher throughput? I have been using my RB532s in 333MHz mode.The RB532 with 266MHz does about 50Mb/s throughput over wireless. We are changing some code to increase that. Over Ethernet, it can do 200-300Mb/s. I suggest that Xandar has the wrong information.
Thanks,
Ken
You guys HAVE to learn about data speeds and udp and tcp. Use google and educate yourselves. Read and understand the TCP RFC. People that speak about TCP as a measure for backbone circuits need to learn more about data communications!!! I have explained this subject several times and I don't have the time to do it more.
If you think TCP is the correct way to measure the speed of a router or link, then be happy and live in ignorance and don't bother this forum with this BS.
John
If you think TCP is the correct way to measure the speed of a router or link, then be happy and live in ignorance and don't bother this forum with this BS.
John
use bandwidth test from a powerful computer, don't run from or to the router, run Over the link. like this:
BTest1 --> Router1 ~~~~~ Router2 ----> BTest2
use these parameters in the test:
direction: receive (or transmit), protocol: udp, random-data: no
look at CPU usage, if it is 100 then maybe you need a faster CPU for testing.
Also you can manually enter speed that you want to test, so you will see if the link can work at certain speeds. increase the speed, if it works, increase it more ... etc.
BTest1 --> Router1 ~~~~~ Router2 ----> BTest2
use these parameters in the test:
direction: receive (or transmit), protocol: udp, random-data: no
look at CPU usage, if it is 100 then maybe you need a faster CPU for testing.
Also you can manually enter speed that you want to test, so you will see if the link can work at certain speeds. increase the speed, if it works, increase it more ... etc.