Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.9.0.0.8605
#1
NOTE: This release has problems. Do NOT use it. I have removed the link for the download.

This release is using the driver from 4.6 series with many enhancements I have been learning. Please make sure you have access to the Ethernet side until you are fairly sure it works well enough to put on a client. The distance code has been reworked and thus I am curious to see if I got it right.

I am pleased to add the following releases, Version 4.9.0.0.8605. for the WAR-1B and Ventana. Others will follow in the coming week.


Please test on an easy to access system and make sure it is stable for your situation. The firmware has been stress tested for general function and throughput in an indoor environment. Your outdoor and long term use "might" not be the same. I have NOT had any issues with upgrading and absolutely NO BRICKS have been created. I will say this is a safe release and your long term use will determine its reliability.

PLEASE post any reports, good or bad of your testing and use. Your feedback is important and helps me to make repairs.

Main Features of the 4.9.0.0.8605 Release
- FULL Licensed Frequency support.
- FULL Bridging support.
- NO Hidden ESSID.
- NO Full Duplex.
- NO Basic SYNC support.

- make sure you do NOT use u-APSD on the clients

- This is the driver from the 4.6 series with some enhancements i have learned while working on 4.8 I need to have the core functionality tested for reliability, mainly to see if the AP stall issue is gone. PLEASE give this a test in a spot that has problems. I am fairly sure the AP issue is gone because I can run a very brutal stress test: A throughput test at 3,000 to 4,000 LBytes/sec and memory test while pinging. This test runs overnight, so 7+ hours and the pings did not lose a single one.

The following versions have been added and tested

- WAR-1B
- Ventana
Reply
#2
OK, I installed it on one of our WAR1B AP's and recorded two videos of the results. As before, the test is configured as such... AP Association list open, sorted by IP Address, and then a batch file running on my desktop computer, which does a 'starutil IP PASS -tx -duration 6' to each CPE's IP address. So, you can basically watch the throughput test results by watching the AP Association and watching the test 'climb' through each CPE.

The short results are:

4.8.8878 - most CPE's test at 1,200 KB to 4,000 KB / sec or more
4.9.8605 - most CPE's test at 20-30 KB to 200-300 KB / sec, and several didn't test at all (0 KB)

4.8 = http://toddchamberlain.com/staros/10.10...._41 AM.mp4

4.9 = http://toddchamberlain.com/staros/10.10...._15 AM.mp4

This may be distance... I don't know the distance to each Client offhand. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the 200 KB guys are close and the 20 KB guys are further away. BUT, with 4.8 - PaintB is probably 10 KM away and get's 3000-4000 KB/sec
Reply
#3
Thanks for the test. I never would have imagined it to be so bad.

I need something under my control so I can try new firmware and do some poking while it is in distress. Obviously ninedd had to remove the firmware asap, and a BIG thanks to him for the testing.

If anyone has a spare couple of units about 2 to 5 km of each other, I would truly appreciate it if you can allow me to take control of them for my development.

Please PM me if you can help me out.
Reply
#4
lonnie Wrote:I need something under my control so I can try new firmware and do some poking while it is in distress. If anyone has a spare couple of units about 2 to 5 km of each other, I would truly appreciate it if you can allow me to take control of them for my development.
I don't know how this is possible. This may help you solve the ridiculously low throughput with 4.9 maybe, but as I've said again and again and again, I don't know how this will help you see an AP Stall / FUBAR issue.

We see it much more often on AP's with more clients (so more often on an AP with 25 clients vs an AP with 5 clients) we see it more often on an AP with more Interference vs less interference, and we see it more often on an AP with more higher-use throughput clients vs having lower throughput clients which do more web-surfing vs streaming. So, I'm not really sure 'a couple units' will show anything. We have an AP with 5 clients which is running 4.7.8747 and has 19 days uptime right now. Big deal, it's got 5 clients and only 1 of those guys is a high use client... so it's basically 1 real client, and 4 occasional use clients. It's run 19 days with no issues, because it was 1 real client. When it had 20 clients, it would FUBAR 20 times per day. Once 15 of those clients disconnected, the remaining 5 seem to work just fine.

SO - if you need 2 units a few KM apart to work on distance code, I can go set a couple up somewhere for you. BUT, I don't think that won't show you anything about AP Stall or FUBAR issues. AND AGAIN, the only platforms I'm aware of that have this issue are WAR1B's and APU's (and Ventanas from what I've been told).

Nonetheless, if you need 2 units that are a few KM apart in order to work out problems with distance code, I can go set a couple up somewhere for you to work with.
Reply
#5
From what I have seen, 4.9 does not have the fubar issue. I believe the only thing holding it back is that has a distance issue that I cannot work out at close range. If you can set up a couple of units it would be an immense help to me. I would basically want the latest 4.8 on them so I can establish a baseline performance and then I will begin to upload and test the AP firmware. Once I get it so it will communicate at a decent speed I will put my test on the client end as well and see how it works as a pair.

So, I feel the 4.9 fixes the stall issue and I really only need to find out why the distance code is not working. It works flawlessly under stress here but on your test was useless. If I can fix the distance thing you'll be a happy camper.



ninedd Wrote:I don't know how this is possible. This may help you solve the ridiculously low throughput with 4.9 maybe, but as I've said again and again and again, I don't know how this will help you see an AP Stall / FUBAR issue.

We see it much more often on AP's with more clients (so more often on an AP with 25 clients vs an AP with 5 clients) we see it more often on an AP with more Interference vs less interference, and we see it more often on an AP with more higher-use throughput clients vs having lower throughput clients which do more web-surfing vs streaming. So, I'm not really sure 'a couple units' will show anything. We have an AP with 5 clients which is running 4.7.8747 and has 19 days uptime right now. Big deal, it's got 5 clients and only 1 of those guys is a high use client... so it's basically 1 real client, and 4 occasional use clients. It's run 19 days with no issues, because it was 1 real client. When it had 20 clients, it would FUBAR 20 times per day. Once 15 of those clients disconnected, the remaining 5 seem to work just fine.

SO - if you need 2 units a few KM apart to work on distance code, I can go set a couple up somewhere for you. BUT, I don't think that won't show you anything about AP Stall or FUBAR issues. AND AGAIN, the only platforms I'm aware of that have this issue are WAR1B's and APU's (and Ventanas from what I've been told).

Nonetheless, if you need 2 units that are a few KM apart in order to work out problems with distance code, I can go set a couple up somewhere for you to work with.
Reply
#6
lonnie Wrote:From what I have seen, 4.9 does not have the fubar issue.
How do you determine that? Where have you seen that it doesn't have the fubar issue? I have no idea, since 4.9 was unable to run for long here, so I don't want to be negative on it... I'm just saying I don't understand how you have determined that?

In any event, I'll go ahead and I'll see if I can figure out a place to connect an AP and CPE for you a few KM apart, and I'll put a 4.8 on there for performance baseline for you.
Reply
#7
lonnie Wrote:If I can fix the distance thing you'll be a happy camper.
I don't think that anything in any of my feelings should be described as 'happy'.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)