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.
- 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.