Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Version 4.8.0.0.9071
#11
I have to disagree with the above assessment. I use 5 and 10Mhz channel widths extensively not only for 900/2.4GHz links but also 5GHz links. There are many situations where data is unreliable using 20MHz wide channels due to either interference or poor signal conditions. In either case using a narrower channel gives a more consistent and reliable connection.

The idea that two 20MHz AP's on the same channel will have the same bandwidth as if they were separated on 10MHz channels does not play out in real life. For one the data stream is very inconsistent when they overlap causing bursts and lulls that is not friendly to high availability services such as VOIP. Also, if signal is not optimum you will actually get better data throughput at a narrow channel than a wide one due to increased sensitivity. This is true in all types of RF communication, not just our corner of the world.

Without 5 and 10MHz channels this operating system would be useless to me and I would not be able to service the vast majority of my mission critical customers.
-Andy
PTI Wireless
Reply
#12
I have to agree with pti-andy 100% - because of our setups, which sound very similar to his, there's no point in our even trying anything without 5 + 10 Mhz channels - fixing things and getting stability is critical - losing functions along the way doesn't really solve anything for us - and 5 + 10 Mhz channels to us are core functions, not features.
Reply
#13
What hardware are you using for these units? I have been having all the trouble with the war1b as an AP on 2.4 GHz and finally fixed it with a new driver but it lacks the 5&10 MHz channels. I will push on and get 5&10 MHz added, but until then you can use the older releases which have it. I have reports from a few camera operators that 4.4.5.6 works great and has uptimes of 20+ days.

This is going to be a very difficult feature to add, so don't expect it too soon. I have learned a LOT about the driver but adding the 5&10 will be even harder than what I have done. It will get done but it is going to take some time.

pti-andy Wrote:I have to disagree with the above assessment. I use 5 and 10Mhz channel widths extensively not only for 900/2.4GHz links but also 5GHz links. There are many situations where data is unreliable using 20MHz wide channels due to either interference or poor signal conditions. In either case using a narrower channel gives a more consistent and reliable connection.

The idea that two 20MHz AP's on the same channel will have the same bandwidth as if they were separated on 10MHz channels does not play out in real life. For one the data stream is very inconsistent when they overlap causing bursts and lulls that is not friendly to high availability services such as VOIP. Also, if signal is not optimum you will actually get better data throughput at a narrow channel than a wide one due to increased sensitivity. This is true in all types of RF communication, not just our corner of the world.

Without 5 and 10MHz channels this operating system would be useless to me and I would not be able to service the vast majority of my mission critical customers.
Reply
#14
I use XScale (Avila) and Laguna hadware for all of my 5GHz links. Anything newer than 4.2.3 crashes for me so 4.4.5.6 is not an option. I can't use the newest without complete features. For me if I just had a 4.2.3 or 4.1.12 that supported all frequencies I'd be set.
-Andy
PTI Wireless
Reply
#15
Just curious what radio cards are you using. I was using 4.1.12 with the WLM54AGP radios.
I have since loaded 4.4.5.6 on my 5.x / 4.9 system and have standardized on WLM NX200 cards in N mode.
Everything is running OLSR.
Everything uses HT20 spacing. Nothing crashes. Using (Many) ALIX 2d2,ALIX 2D3, Alix APU-1's , (6) Lagunas, (Several) WP-188's, a few WAR 4 sbc's. and 4 Ventanas.
Just built (2) 4 radio Ventanas that will be running the newest beta 4800 series to take the place of some overloaded Lagunas.
All site are installed with at least a -60 signal and most show a quality of 100% those that are signal shy still provide non dropping constant video.
I just put up a new system using a dozen WAR1B's running 4456 and they have been running for at least a month 24 /7 streaming video with no problems.
Also 2 end point dog-legs with WAR1B's running the 4800 beta that haven't stopped yet.
I wonder what the difference is.?
I wonder why I am having such good luck and you folks are having crashes.
Dave
<
@)
(Cooter>>
^^^^^^^^^^
Vrablic

"I have no excuses, Just reasons"

Reply
#16
David, do you have RTS/CTS Protection enabled?
Reply
#17
Yes I do . I don't change any of those default settings in that box.
Also I don't have a single site that is using anything but HT20.
Some sites have massive amounts of interference on 5.8 especially around the colleges and government buildings.

I lied: I meant (NOW) I am in an ongoing process of changing out any of the existing ABG radios running A mode to new NX200 radios in N mode.
Huge improvement in signal and stability in all 4.x versions .
Dave
<
@)
(Cooter>>
^^^^^^^^^^
Vrablic

"I have no excuses, Just reasons"

Reply
#18
The 5GHz links that I've had trouble with were all Lagunas (of both current and older revision) using R5SHPn and SR71 radio cards with AR9220 chipsets. The issue seems to be worse with 40Mhz channels and high bandwidth running but I also monitor those more closely so it is had to say for sure. Changing frequencies has no effect so it is not an interference situation. It occurs with a single point-to-point connection with large highly focused antennas and strong signal as well. All radio settings are default and Interfaces using bridge mode but I've gone through many settings to try to solve the issue.

To be sure it was indeed a version problem I would repeatedly make and break the problem by upgrading to all versions higher than 4.2.3 and in every case I would get several crashes/reboots/lockups and downgrading back solved the issue. The testing to arrive at this conclusion was extensive because I was desperately searching for a higher version that supported all frequencies so I went through every singe one and all failed so I am therefore reluctantly stuck at 4.2.3 or 4.1.12 without full frequency support.
-Andy
PTI Wireless
Reply
#19
From what I have read, both Tony and Lonnie have had a real problem trying to hit a moving target with the Laguna hardware.
As soon as they got it to work the manuf. changed something that broke it. That puts the end user in a very bad spot because he doesn't know what has happened.
I am sure there are many permutations involving radio cards. I haven't had any need to use high power radios since the SR days. Nothing but heartaches and had many replaced by the manuf.
I have gone thru CM9's, WLM AGP23' and now the WLM nx200 radios in N mode. Everything has gotten better all along the way.
The RF congestion negates me using any BW wider that HT20. but that yields a data rate of 65 x 65 that is more than enough for what I am doing.
The few 2x2 links I have are a solid 130 x 130 data rate. I wish I had some answers or things to try. besides the old "are your power supplies big enough"
I have found some versions like 4455 do not play well with A mode radios miked with 4456 for me.
Dave
<
@)
(Cooter>>
^^^^^^^^^^
Vrablic

"I have no excuses, Just reasons"

Reply
#20
David, you said you have Ventana's working with out problems? I only have two, both doing only ethernets as a router. One I have not had issues with except if I leave my season open, it eventually stops being active. Have to log back in. The other, I just moved to a more active roll in a small pop as the main router connected to a bridged PtP wan. I've had to power cycle that one a three times in a week.
I previously had them as wifi ap's but had continuous problems with them stop working and needed rebooting often. Ping watchdog did nothing to help, didn't work. These are original ventanas that I bought from Lonnie's cousins.
So I'm wondering what your experience is.
I need some routers that do better than 100megs and are reliable. Any suggestions would help
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  GeckoClean - Current version v1.10 tony 3 1,857 05-15-2013, 08:10 PM
Last Post: tony

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)