Hi,

we completed a nstreme2 configuration last week. 4 mile link, -53/-60, 42SNR, -90 noise floor. boards are rb333. cards are r52h. using 29dbi solid dishes. Freqs are 5210/5610 HPOL/VPOL. At first, test looked good... on UDP. But try as we might, even with turbo enabled, we cannot sustain more than 15mbit full duplex on TCP bandwidth test from computer to computer. This isn't nearly enough for our needs. we need closer to 40 full duplex.

We are disappointed, and feel maybe we made the wrong selection in hardware (but NOT in Mikrotik).

These links are on towers, so "just use a PC" won't work for us, unless someone has done this reliably before, and can make some recs (we are game for most anything). So, with money as no object, what is your practical recommendation to backhaul a DS3 from tower to tower using MT and their product line of routerboards?
Thanks

Cheers!

Hi,

we completed a nstreme2 configuration last week. 4 mile link, -53/-60, 42SNR, -90 noise floor. boards are rb333. cards are r52h. using 29dbi solid dishes. Freqs are 5210/5610 HPOL/VPOL. At first, test looked good... on UDP. But try as we might, even with turbo enabled, we cannot sustain more than 15mbit full duplex on TCP bandwidth test from computer to computer. This isn't nearly enough for our needs. we need closer to 40 full duplex.

We are disappointed, and feel maybe we made the wrong selection in hardware (but NOT in Mikrotik).

These links are on towers, so "just use a PC" won't work for us, unless someone has done this reliably before, and can make some recs (we are game for most anything). So, with money as no object, what is your practical recommendation to backhaul a DS3 from tower to tower using MT and their product line of routerboards?
Thanks

Cheers!

There's something wrong with your Installation. I've installed a RB500 to RB600 connection
using Mars Panels/R52 and got 15Mbit/s TCP full duplex from RB to RB. Nstream, no turbo,
Within 1W EiRP 10km. I think this is limited by the RB500 running at 100% CPU. Signal is
-70/-75.
So with turbo and dual Nstream your 40MBit should be reachable. Designing such a
link I would use 2 RB600. There are 2x2 Sockets for Cards on it so you can separate the
2 cards a bit better than on RB333. Separate Antennas as far as possible.
May be your problem is interference or your Antennas are not as good? We like
the Mars panels. I would start checking each link separate and see if it performs
and then both to see wether it's self-interference. I think here was a thread on
filters you can reduce interference between channels.
Check/Bandwithtest your Ethernet connections. I've seen customers with poor
speed due to a problem with the cable run to the RB.

Stefan

hello,

individually, the links show a CCQ of 100%. In fact, we get near the same performance on a single link as we do both when nstreme is running. I will grab some snapshots today. I do HOPE it is a problem with configuration, as the hardware seems to be good. All cables tested, 2ft solid dishes, etc.

Thanks

What is the received signal level at each end? e.g. -41db

-90 noise floor

This is a problem.

If you change channel does it get better (-100 or so)

hi guys, been working with settings today, not really sure what certain parameters should be. But anyways, my current numbers for signal strength are:
site 1: -60, -62
Site 2: -58, -60

This is at 48Mbps on the cards, as having the data rate of 54 produced erratic pings and speeds.

regarding the noise floor. I only know how to get readings when I break the Nstreme, and set up individual links. The results:
Freq 1, noise floor fluctuates from -94 to -103
Freq 2, noise floor more constant at -95 to -97

Is there a way to monitor this variable while in Nstreme2?

In any case, testing and retesting, we get 12-17 mbps on send, and 9-13mps on recieve when running BOTH on TCP. UDP shows up a 27-30mbps on send, and 19-24mbps on recieve. We saw a few spikes up to 40. This was on BOTH on UDP.

Is this typical? Is this the best it will be? I just want to be able to have a real backbone link. one that can handle the 45 mbit fiber feed to our primary tower with approx 500 customers.

OH, I forgot to mention. We are using ROS 3.4 and, not knowing for sure what numbers to use, set the framing policy to exact and 4000

Cheers fellas

a -90 noise floor is not a problem for a -60 link - there is 30db difference. If MT had a problem with -90 noise floor then it would be useless.

I don't have an answer to your posted question but I look forward to hearing the answer. I think you can safely ignore the "noise floor needs to be -100" answer. If I speak incorrectly on this then by all means someone let me know so it can be discussed further.

anyway, he says the links perform good individually so again the noise floor should not be changing with dual nstream configured.
======
Just saw your new post,
I'd test both freqs on your receive test and see which one performs best then use the other freq on the send side, that way you can choose the freq and direction your antenna is looking based on the interference each sees. I also have a feeling your framer policy on exact fit and 4000 it not the best choice from what I have read in the forums. Id try either framer off or best fit with default size values.

Scott

I would suggest getting back to a simple config:

Nstreme on
Polling on
no framer policy

leave the data rates set to default
leave the tx power rates set to default

are you bridging or routing?

bring up just 1 link and test the speed (make sure the other cards are disabled).

I have a 30 mile link with -60 signals that I can do 25Mbps in TCP testing using RB532's, 20mhz channel and only single Nstreme.

Travis

thanks for the replies.

What I am really after here is full duplex, low latency, and stability for the youtubers and gamers. This is going to be a busy link. I will try to simplify the settings again, and see what that produces. I never mess with the power, and on nstreme2, there are no default rates, you simply select the rates you want with a click. We'll see how the no framing policy looks tonight.

Oh, and we are bridging.

Tjohnson, are you getting those speeds on BOTH on the speed test, or only one direction?

From these replies, it seems most people think the hardware should be good enough?


Cheers!~

If you are looking for stability and low latency, consider the Trango 45mbps backhaul or the Alvarion B100. Either one should be up and working in a day, no messing around for a week.

If you are looking for stability and low latency, consider the Trango 45mbps backhaul or the Alvarion B100. Either one should be up and working in a day, no messing around for a week.

i'm affraid, this is a mikrotik forum, jp...
if you have some suggestion - please welcome.

Now to primary post:
I suppose there is some huge interference... Changing channels may help, isn't it?
We have similar problem as listed above, but 1. distance 33 miles, 2. bandwidth through. 40Mbps are done.

a -90 noise floor is not a problem for a -60 link - there is 30db difference. If MT had a problem with -90 noise floor then it would be useless...

How find any info about what shuld it be - the difference?

jp,

At first I scowled at your suggestion, but in looking more open-mindedly, you may have a valid point. Being a business person, fussing and fussing with a product is just a bad idea. I looked at the Trango 45mbps and they are on sale this week only, helf price. Crazy. But of course, this item does not offer full duplex, and that is something we REALLy want. I was hoping for better results, but like most things in our field, we have to figure it out on our own.

Another reason I am stuck on Mikrotik is field replacement. if we have a link go down, slap a $200 replacement board up, restore configs, and you're back in business. This fits my business model nicely. Not to mention I am extremely stubborn, and I believe we can do better with this, we just need a few more suggestions from the more experienced and knowledgable.

Cheers!

You must become an expert with mikrotik to have good results..

We have several links over 80km with dual nstreme with bandwidth 60-64M/60-64M
on all installations.. We use 2.9.50 versions for this purpose...

All works perfect... You must use x86 systems to achieve better results...

I just finished putting up a 14 mile link with 2' Dish Antenna's & RB600's each with a single XR5 card (no nstreme dual). Max throughput is around 30mbit tcp one way. I think you will find it very hard to get 40mbit full duplex out of the 333's. You should be able to achieve at least 27mbit full duplex, possibly 30mbit, but 40 will be out of reach with that hardware.

bokili, what kind of x86 systems are you using?

danletkemen, did you have any quirks with the setup you described above? I was considering about the exact same hardware for a similar link. How do you feel about it?

Scott

Getting 30mbps one-way on that link is normal, assuming only a 20mhz channel. What if you change to a 40mhz (turbo) channel size? I have an x86 link that has a -60 signal on each side, and if I go to 40mhz channels, I can get 50Mbps one direction. If he uses two cards, with RB600's, I would think 40Mbps full-duplex would be possible, but just barely.

Travis

What hardware is that with travis? The RB600 as mentioned or other RB hardware? And was it an xr5?

Thanks,
Scott

It was a Celeron 1.5ghz based rack mount system with SR5 cards and LMR cable to the antennas. My point was more that with 20mhz of spectrum, you are going to run out of spectrum before you run out of CPU with the RB600 units. I don't believe there is any difference between the RB333 and RB600 for doing just wireless links... unless you start adding firewalling, bandwidth, QoS, etc.

Even with my 40mhz channel testing, my CPU's were only at 35% while moving 57+Mbps.

Travis

I am getting really excited to put together a RB600 and an Ubiquity SR71-5 with Dual polarity PTP dishes. Wish April would hurry up and get here for Ubiquity to release the card.

Here's to hoping MT is on top of this. Especially since they were sporting a 802.11n MIMO card at MUM in FL last year. ;)

-Louis

I think there is a post from MT about this... and that they will not be supporting it for a while... they are waiting for something. (I just can't remember what it was).

OK, cant resist jumping in.

Suggestions to simplify and and test with single link are right on. First, as suggested, setup Nstreme, polling, no framer policy. Use only one set of radio cards. Recommend even removing second radio, no matter how painful that is.
I have similar setup with lesser hardware peaking at about 40+Mbps TCP using single cards, turbo mode, Nstreme, some framer policy, -50s signal level, very high SNR. Line of sight at 1 mile between skyscrapers, so I know the path is clean.

Absolutely use the default setting for power, but you might have to go further and go to card rates, and lower the maximum power. I recall going to 3dBm at one point. There is a point when such high signal levels and SNR are actually overloading the receiver front ends. It will naturally tell you 100/100 CCQ, but exhibit this strange low TCP performance. High power cards are not needed in some situations, but if you use them in high signal level environments, single cards only, turn down the power. The red flag you have that indicates a problem is that it wont run properly at 54Mbps. It absolutely should run max bitrate if its working properly. I like running in low 60s for RSSI so I know I wont lose the connection, but at the same time, I know it wont overload. Really good cards do what they are supposed to and will hear really well, but like to run in their comfortable range which is card dependent. Secondarily, since the second card, probably even if its disabled, still might be putting out some RF on some frequency. I have been in your situation, but was fortunate to be able to access the radios easily. I recall peaking at about 57+Mbps UDP, and I know it was easily in the 40Mbps TCP range. Also, as suggested, move that channel around and you will be surprised what you find. I have used strange methods to accomplish this. Dont look at signal levels, SNR or CCQ. I run a bandwidth test between radios, and keep changing the channel. The bandwidth test will recover and restart. You will find that one particular range of frequencies will be exhibit drastically different performance. The second method, which yields the same frequency is whatever channel runs at 54/54. In RouterOS 3.x the 'throughput' bitrate will give you the highest rate on the same channels you find get the best results, in other words, they will all give you the same result, just multiple paths to same answer.

For whatever its worth, I hope this helps, so: run constant bandwidth test, look for 54/54 bitrate, find maximum 'P throughput'. Also, lower the power as low as you dare, and maybe even turn off turbo until you find the sweet spot channel, then turn it back on and see the throughput double. I have a feeling you will be happy with the results. Its just another way to look at performance measurement, but these are the metrics that count. As far as full duplex, I dont know whats wrong with <1ms under heavy load without full duplex. I'll bet you will get great results if you can just max out the link.

Would love to hear if this helped. I have been through this. If it helps, then I will comment on a couple other issues I have experienced with certain equipment combinations later....Good Luck

You must become an expert with mikrotik to have good results..

We have several links over 80km with dual nstreme with bandwidth 60-64M/60-64M
on all installations.. We use 2.9.50 versions for this purpose...

All works perfect... You must use x86 systems to achieve better results...

80km/60Mbps bandwidth? uhaa...
tell us more about the devices, antennas (what dishes, how many - two with double converter or four to prepare nstreme, how big are they) ... if not a secret.
and why 2.9.50, not v3.3?

danletkemen, did you have any quirks with the setup you described above? I was considering about the exact same hardware for a similar link. How do you feel about it?

Scott

This is our first RB600 bridge and It works perfectly. It's only been up for a few days now, but performing like I expected. I had it pre-configured on the bench, we brought it out to the sight (two grain elevators 250~ feet up), aligned the antennas and got a perfect signal. -48 to -54 and 100/100 ccq.

This is our 19th MT bridge. All of them have been working great.

I just finished putting up a 14 mile link with 2' Dish Antenna's & RB600's each with a single XR5 card (no nstreme dual). Max throughput is around 30mbit tcp one way. I think you will find it very hard to get 40mbit full duplex out of the 333's. You should be able to achieve at least 27mbit full duplex, possibly 30mbit, but 40 will be out of reach with that hardware.

bokili, what kind of x86 systems are you using?

We use x86 Intel Pentium 4 on almost all our installations.

I would imagine he was interested in more than just the processor. What case/enclosure, etc -- basically what system components make up the system you have found works best for you?

Scott

Thanks for all the activity fellas. I think I have my question answered for the topic head.

Some seem to think with a properly configured setup with this hardware, I should be able to get around 35mbit FD. If I want more, most are saying go with an x86 setup. OK. I am going to start a new thread calling tuning the 35mbit backhaul. I have a bunch of screenshots. Hope to see you there.

You must become an expert with mikrotik to have good results..

We have several links over 80km with dual nstreme with bandwidth 60-64M/60-64M
on all installations.. We use 2.9.50 versions for this purpose...

All works perfect... You must use x86 systems to achieve better results...

Are you sure you have exactly such results? Not kidding us?

Thanks for all the activity fellas. I think I have my question answered for the topic head.

Some seem to think with a properly configured setup with this hardware, I should be able to get around 35mbit FD. If I want more, most are saying go with an x86 setup. OK. I am going to start a new thread calling tuning the 35mbit backhaul. I have a bunch of screenshots. Hope to see you there.

Hi,
We tryed before with RB in similar situation like yours. No problem - good signal levels, etc... but bad throughput - small amount of traffic and num of packets passed.
Solution was to use x86@3GHz. Ping breaks stopped, high throughput (35Mbit) reached.
But that's all... We replace all - antennas, cables... no more than 35Mbps. In previous post we comment 80km@60Mbps. Let experts says us how culd it be.

Are you sure you have exactly such results? Not kidding us?

I just make bandwidth test, But was unable to achieve better than 50Mbit/sec Full Duplex with real traffic already passing...
Something heppend with aligment of antennas I suppose... I will check it.

See attached file.

I just make bandwidth test, But was unable to achieve better than 50Mbit/sec Full Duplex with real traffic already passing...
Something heppend with aligment of antennas I suppose... I will check it.

yeah, it's real... that is smt. real. at 50km we have usually 55-60Mbps bandwidth test and 45Mbps real traffic with several houndred of customers. and note, without nstreme dual, single link only nstreme+turbo enabled on 5ghz-turbo.

Apropos, any ideas to pass 100Mbit real traffic and more with one single link @dist. of 50km?
Is it possible with MikoTik - guruz free to feel chalanged

I just make bandwidth test, But was unable to achieve better than 50Mbit/sec Full Duplex with real traffic already passing...
Something heppend with aligment of antennas I suppose... I will check it.

yeah, it's real... that is smt. real. at 50km we have usually 55-60Mbps bandwidth test and 45Mbps real traffic with several houndred of customers. and note, without nstreme dual, single link only nstreme+turbo enabled on 5ghz-turbo.

Apropos, any ideas to pass 100Mbit real traffic and more with one single link @dist. of 50km?
Is it possible with MikoTik - guruz free to feel chalanged

bonding

I just make bandwidth test, But was unable to achieve better than 50Mbit/sec Full Duplex with real traffic already passing...
Something heppend with aligment of antennas I suppose... I will check it.

yeah, it's real... that is smt. real. at 50km we have usually 55-60Mbps bandwidth test and 45Mbps real traffic with several houndred of customers. and note, without nstreme dual, single link only nstreme+turbo enabled on 5ghz-turbo.

Apropos, any ideas to pass 100Mbit real traffic and more with one single link @dist. of 50km?
Is it possible with MikoTik - guruz free to feel chalanged

bonding

will bonding work stable all the time?

Use separate antennas and different pol.
Use "mii type 1" link monitor and do not bond EoIP tunnels/ use wds instead or it will eat your cpu/.
You can use different boards but that will cost rather expensive.

To Promind: looking @ your answer, bonding seems to offer better performance than NStreme2, do you suggest to use it instead of NStreme2 ?
To Bokili: you have 5 wireless cards on you pt-to-pt device...strange . Did you use double polarized antennas or two antennas per side? Did you use RF filters to limit crosstalk? Did you use spectrum analyzer to evaluate possible interference? Your result is very interesting so please share with us as many info as possible in order to replicate it and avoid to spend money as suggested by JP .

Rdgs

To Promind: looking @ your answer, bonding seems to offer better performance than NStreme2, do you suggest to use it instead of NStreme2 ?
...
...
Rdgs

ofcourse, last several comments do say that. days after readings in this forum we replace nstreme2 with bonding in a backhaul... works better.

Could you please post more details chvdr ?
Configuration, schemas, frequency used, distnce covered, throughput (TCP) measured, etc....
Thanks,
Rgds

Hi Kijomabb,
the test you described is very interesting.
Could you please post more info (e.g. pictures)?
I don't like RB333/RB433 layout too, is quite clear that crosstalk is a problem with such layout...
It have been much better RB532/RB600 like. Unfortunately I suppose that Mikrotik will mantain this type of RBs (probably for cost saving reasons...).
Are you currently using RB433 with the type of isolation you described?
Rgds

Turn connection tracking off in the firewall.

Could you please post more details chvdr ?
Configuration, schemas, frequency used, distnce covered, throughput (TCP) measured, etc....
Thanks,
Rgds

sorry i'm late with my answer... configuration is most simliest, may be taken from documentation. Devices used are pc amd based most powerful cpu as possible.

Hi chvdr,
your are using PC based units to reach this high throuhput so I suppose that you are using indoor units with coax cable (e.g. Andrew). Have you done testing also on enclosure+antenna units? If yes, what hardware did perform better? RB333/433 seems to have crosstalk problems related to thei form factor (miniPCI cards too closer)....

Hi Kijomabb,
did you use alluminum foil to "isolate" cards on RB333/RB433? Could you please post some pictures? Did you use different HW from MT?

Rgds

Thank you Kijomabb,
I didn't pay much attention to pigtails because they are very short. Currently I'm using these type
http://www.pacwireless.com/products/cab ... lies.shtml
do you suggest something else?

Rgds

Hi chvdr,
...Have you done testing also on enclosure+antenna units? If yes, what hardware did perform better? RB333/433 seems to have crosstalk problems related to thei form factor (miniPCI cards too closer)....

Rgds

No we have never taste enclosure or antenna units. Just we replace them for searching effect. Also we have ever, ever using pc units. Routerboards we use very, very occasionally by exception.