Drop in some MicroTik boxes where you can.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan" <blsutton@airnetwifi.net>
To: "Karlnet Mailing List" <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Transfer Rates
> Well since I don't have this equipment in place I'm not familiar with
> it's options - I frouting is a better way to go I will implement that
> option.
>
> On the AP2Ks I was using, there was nothing but the ability to talk to
> another AP via it's WDS, no routing option so I couldn't do anything
> with that.
>
> If the SG4200/4400 software allows me to route - I'll use it.
>
> bryan
>
> Bob Hrbek wrote:
>
> >I think you'll regret not routing.
> >
> >I think once you get to about 25 users, routing will have some serious
> >benefits.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bryan" <blsutton@airnetwifi.net>
> >To: "Karlnet Mailing List" <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:37 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Transfer Rates
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Yes - using one of the radios solely for BackHaul the other solely for
> >>customers.
> >>A little clarification on 64 BH links - such as the 2nd Kn200 has 2 BH
> >>links - I was told that it could support upto 64...
> >>
> >>Bryan
> >>
> >>Bob Hrbek wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>all bridged?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Bryan" <blsutton@airnetwifi.net>
> >>>To: "Karlnet Mailing List" <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:15 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Transfer Rates
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It stripped the image...
> >>>>See text based attempt below - you may have to widen your window to
see
> >>>>properly
> >>>>Bryan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Interesting - I was just getting ready to purchase KN-200s to resolve
> >>>>>that very same issue, I was using Orinoco AP2000s and having same
> >>>>>problem. I will hold hold off pending a resultion to your problem -
> >>>>>no sense spending the money for new equipment with same problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I proved to Proxim that it wasn't a network congestion problem or a
> >>>>>problem with the internet speed tests by:
> >>>>>1. Setting up an FTP server internal on my network.
> >>>>>2. Shutting off all customers - this wasn't much of an issue as I was
> >>>>>testing network and only had people that were willing to use for
free,
> >>>>>under the understanding that it could go down at any time.
> >>>>>3. Repeatedly DLing & ULing a 120meg file from server to laptop &
> >>>>>back, at vatious points in the network while watching with DU Meter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As for your Ping test - it would seem to me that if you are Rxing
~3.4
> >>>>>mbps ROUND TRIP - since thisis half duplex the one way should be 2x
> >>>>>that or 6.8mbps...?????
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Personnally - I don't give rat's @ss about any latency tests or any
> >>>>>other built in tests - Those can be manipulated by the writer of the
> >>>>>software to show favorable results. The only thing a customer, and
> >>>>>therefore myself, cares about is that if they are being sold a
service
> >>>>>at particular speed, they get it. The only way to prove that is to
> >>>>>have an internal network speed test of some sort.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Here what they told me would support upto 1mbps thruput to customers
> >>>>>at any point in the network (using TC for backhaul on one radio -the
> >>>>>other radio to serve customers)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>NOC<>KN200w/SG4400<=>KN200w/SG4400<=>KN200w/SG4400<=>KN200w/SG4200
> >>>>
> >>>>| |
> >>>> KN200w/SG4400
> >>>>KN200w/SG4400
> >>>> |
> >>>> |
> >>>> KN200w/SG4400
> >>>> Future
> >>>> |
> >>>> KN200w/SG4200
> >>>>Upto 64 backhaul links off any one radio - I was told
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Anyone using a network in similiar config, i.e. 4 wireless backhauls,
> >>>>>that can verify this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Bryan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>jna wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hello Group,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I am trying to diagnose bad transfer rates in my network and started
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >at
> >
> >
> >>>>>>square 1. We have an RG1000 SAT shooting a 3MB/S feed to a central
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>relay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>tower only about 1 mile from the datacenter (-47db Signal). The
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >central
> >
> >
> >>>>>>relay is running on kn-200 BASE. When I connect to the relay point
> >>>>>>via my
> >>>>>>laptop I am lucky to see 800K to 1.2MB/S over the net transfers.
> >>>>>>Using the
> >>>>>>ping fill utility I measure that the transfer rates from the RG1000
> >>>>>>SAT to
> >>>>>>the KN-200 is an average of 3.2 with a max of 3.6MB/S over the air.
> >>>>>>According to the ping fill this should should be sufficent to cary
my
> >>>>>>3MB/S
> >>>>>>feed but I am not seeing it at the central relay not even half of
it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I asked Karlnet support about it and they said that is normal
because
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>ping fill shows round trip so my 3.2 to 3.6MB/S transfer to the
relay
> >>>>>>point
> >>>>>>should on support 1.6 to 1.8MB/S one way (Even though there not even
> >>>>>>seeing
> >>>>>>that much). I questioned this and never received a reply back. On
our
> >>>>>>main
> >>>>>>tower which is still on a T1 I have my home connection to the main
> >>>>>>tower via
> >>>>>>ping fill shows my average transfer time of 1,271,009 and max of
> >>>>>>1,484,160.
> >>>>>>Now if we took the half duplex analogy to mean this result is round
> >>>>>>trip and
> >>>>>>my connection according to ping fill and karlnet should only handle
> >>>>>>630K -
> >>>>>>742K either up or down, correct? But if this is true then why is it
I
> >>>>>>can
> >>>>>>register on the bandwidth testing sites using this same connection
> >>>>>>double
> >>>>>>that actually about what the ping fill says? My average over the net
> >>>>>>connection rating is 1.2MB/S ... Does anyone else have any
> >>>>>>information on
> >>>>>>the actuall ping fill and if it even works right at all? If the
above
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>is
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>true then my 3.2-3.6MB/S link to the relay is accurate should get me
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >my
> >
> >
> >>>>>>3MB/S feed there with no problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I cant get answers from karlnet support, does anyone have a clue
here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Is anyone else using Karlnet for backhauling locations? Are you able
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >to
> >
> >
> >>>>>>backhaul more than a T1?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Thank You,
> >>>>>>John
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
|