Do you use the ethernet boot rom as well?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Deaton" <steve@texasbb.com>
To: "'Brett Hays'" <bretth@htonline.net>; "'Karlnet Mailing List'"
<karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
> Dan's Bandwidth management comment:
> We throttle every client at their location with the RG-1100. It is not
> bandwidth related because even someone trying to view an IP camera at
> low frame-rate and resolution would bog down the network. The polling
> sees any volume as a priority over frequency of hits. Citrix requires
> an extremely low bandwidth, but requires a constant conversation with
> the server (frequency). However, it is given a low priority over
> someone even temporarily downloading a 4 MB file, low enough to bog down
> the citrix connection.
>
> Brett:
> We build our standard FlashROM units in 19" rack mountable server cases.
> They are loaded with fans as the processors (Duron 1.3GHz) would burn up
> within seconds without a fan. This is going to be the case with
> anything over 800MHz and probably some lower than that. RAM is 64Mb,
> mainly b/c that's the most available. I think it is way overkill, but
> who wants to look for hours for an 8 or 16 Mb DIMM to save like $5. We
> mount our equipment at the bottom of all our towers, so if you're used
> to having a water-tight box with an AP1000 up top, this is different.
> We are highly against placing APs at the top of towers as rain prevents
> us from getting up should something need to be replaced. This may sound
> remedial to some, but I have heard of people doing it. FlashROM units
> serve their purposes very well. They are convenient to mount as racks
> are easily available. They have plenty of room to work if you need to
> open one up and add another channel, or swap out a part. They have
> plenty of power to support 100mW and 200mW cards (we have actually
> tested this). They have several case fans and filters to keep the unit
> cool and reliable. You can even check the temperature of the unit
> remotely. They are auto-on, so even if your backup batteries die the
> unit will come alive as soon as power is available. This is not a
> 'compact' or 'lowest price' solution. These are excellent units. We
> even had one get hit by lightening a while back, and the only thing to
> break was the one PCI slot that the antenna was connected to. The rest
> of the unit's slots kept working. That is obviously not in the plan,
> but it was nice to have the unit not blow up. Fortunately that only
> happened one time, and I would expect to be that lucky again. You can
> get specs from Karlnet as to what MoBo/CPU combos "SHOULD" work, but we
> stick to what we have proved to work. I don't view this as a "sales"
> forum, so if anyone is interested in purchasing a unit, please contact
> me directly. Thanks for listening. I hope I helped.
>
> Steve Deaton
> IT Director
> Texas Broadband, Inc.
> (888)868.3835 ext 85 (office)
> 979.289.0148 (office)
> 979.289.5117 (fax)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com
> [mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com] On Behalf Of Brett Hays
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:50 AM
> To: Karlnet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
>
> Steve,
>
> I know I asked which motherboards you are using, but I am really
> curious
> to know more about the setups you are using. For instance, what cpu do
> you
> use (can you get away with a heatsink only to eleminate all moving
> parts)
> What do you do as far as RAM, have you found nice small form factor
> cases to
> use, etc. etc. I think this may be the way we should consider building
> out
> our new network.
>
>
>
> Brett Hays
> Hometown Online
> www.htonline.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Deaton" <steve@texasbb.com>
> To: "'Karlnet Mailing List'" <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
>
>
> > We have had similar problems with polling. We have many commercial
> > accounts that run citrix, or streaming audio/video, etc... With
> polling
> > enabled, whoever needs the largest bandwidth seemed to get it
> > (frequently a kazaa user), and everyone else's ping times elevated to
> > around 700ms. Ping times like that kill connections that must
> maintain
> > a connection across the internet. I haven't been able to get anyone
> > else to verify these instances, but I am not sure of anyone else's
> load
> > and client base. Our client base is primarily commercial and the only
> > way we were able to get things working well was to build FlashROM
> units.
> > We build 1.3GHz TurboCell FlashROM units configured with routing and
> > DHCP and polling DISABLED. Currently we have 18 of these units active
> > and serve over 200 clients. So far we have up to 50 clients on any
> > single unit, with up to 10 commercial clients on the same unit. By
> > commercial I mean over 20 computers using the internet for a mission
> > critical connection other than email. Most are doing terminal
> services,
> > VPN tunneling, or citrix. These numbers are not the limit, just what
> we
> > have reached. The FlashROM unit with polling DISABLED has been the
> > answer to all our prayers. I really feel that using an AP-1000 is a
> > waste of time, especially for the price difference. We were up and
> > running with AP-1000's for several months before changing to the
> > FlashROM units, and we experienced all the problems you describe with
> > the AP-1000. I am amazed at how many people choose to use something
> > with a 100MHz (I think) CPU, when you can have a 1.3GHz unit capable
> of
> > running three channels. If anyone is nervous or unsure about building
> a
> > unit we can help. Feel free to contact me directly with questions.
> As
> > far as polling goes, I have NEVER seen any acceptable use for polling.
> > It is something that might have been cool in the beginning, or if you
> > have a bunch of clients ONLY checking email. If you want to compete
> on
> > a commercial level, I just cannot see using polling. I am open to the
> > idea that we may be wrong, and I welcome input. I speak only from
> > experience, so my info is gathered from our network, not hypothetical
> > situations. If anyone else has any experience with FlashROM units
> > please let me know what has/hasn't worked for you. Thanks.
> >
> > Steve Deaton
> > IT Director
> > Texas Broadband, Inc.
> > (888)868.3835 ext 85 (office)
> > 979.289.0148 (office)
> > 979.289.5117 (fax)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com
> > [mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com] On Behalf Of Nenad Orlic
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:38 AM
> > To: Brett Hays; Karlnet Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
> >
> > > If not, it is kind of a headscratcher. Any way - just for grins -
> > that
> > > you> can go up to the base station and turn OFF polling and see what
> > happens?
> > > I've seen numerous Karlnet networks take off and start flying when
> > polling
> > was turned off.
> > > Go figure.
> >
> > I've talked few times with karlnet tech support about this. They do
> not
> > have
> > the idea why this is happening or they are just playing dumb (or
> both).
> > Pooling is performing much better in versions 3.xx then in versions
> > 4.xx.
> > Their response to that was 'well switch the stations back to 3.xx'
> (but
> > they
> > just didn't told me how to do they think to do that on new boards).
> >
> > But turning of pooling will not solve your problems. At least not for
> a
> > long
> > time. When you do that, station will work much better with clients but
> > only
> > on light load. As soon as usage goes over 500kbit you'll see your
> > station
> > going down....
> >
> > Still waiting for any solution from karlnet about this...
> > There is also interesting problem with new karlnet boards, working
> with
> > kalrnet to see what exactly the problem is. It seems that traffic from
> > wireless to Ethernet port is not being transferred well resulting in
> > poor
> > outgoing traffic performance. Problem with MTU or
> > 'SuperPacketAggregation'?
> > If later, both Turbocell main features are flawed??!
> >
> > greetings, Nenad
> > www.madnet.co.yu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Karlnet mailing list
> > Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> > http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Karlnet mailing list
> > Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> > http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Karlnet mailing list
> Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Karlnet mailing list
> Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
>
|