InoX
09-18-2008, 02:22 PM
NS2 with 3.2rc2 i had a -55 signal; after upgrade to 3.2 signal increase to -40(no other modification). Thats nice.
View Full Version : signal increase after upgrade to 3.2
UBNT-Mike.Ford
09-18-2008, 02:50 PM
Hello Inox,
We implemented better RSSI reporting in the final version of 3.2. There was a small bug with it in the RC's.
Thanks,
Mike
We implemented better RSSI reporting in the final version of 3.2. There was a small bug with it in the RC's.
Thanks,
Mike
jcremin
10-14-2008, 08:21 PM
I think there may be a problem with the NS2 and PS2 regarding the reported signal strength. Either that or they aren't outputting nearly as much power as they should.
On every single 2.4 ghz tower I have, I use a 12dbi omni with an XR2 in a RB411 board. All of my MT clients with an XR2 have very symetrical signal, within a db or two. All of my UBNT clients show about 10db better on the CPE side. At first I thought maybe it was the AP was going deaf, but then I checked and sure enough, every tower showed the same thing, so I'm ruling that out.
Anyone have any ideas? The signal should be within 2 db or so between an NS2/PS2 and an XR2 access point, right? I'm actually hoping that there's an output power problem, because if the PS2/NS2's are reporting the signal stronger than it is, that means I'm going to have to revisit a handful of people and upgrade them to something more powerful otherwise I won't have much fade margin.
Joe
On every single 2.4 ghz tower I have, I use a 12dbi omni with an XR2 in a RB411 board. All of my MT clients with an XR2 have very symetrical signal, within a db or two. All of my UBNT clients show about 10db better on the CPE side. At first I thought maybe it was the AP was going deaf, but then I checked and sure enough, every tower showed the same thing, so I'm ruling that out.
Anyone have any ideas? The signal should be within 2 db or so between an NS2/PS2 and an XR2 access point, right? I'm actually hoping that there's an output power problem, because if the PS2/NS2's are reporting the signal stronger than it is, that means I'm going to have to revisit a handful of people and upgrade them to something more powerful otherwise I won't have much fade margin.
Joe
UBNT-Robert
10-15-2008, 08:53 AM
Hi Guys --
The RSSI reporting can vary depending on the chipset and the driver implementation. We see discrepancies will most often occur at high RSSI levels -30's to -60's and different Atheros based products will converge in -70's and -80's to a more aligned reporting.
We are trying our best to improve the accuracy, which is why you are seeing the change with new firmware; it should only affect the high signal reporting. It is not a hardware performance issue; it is purely reporting.
The RSSI reporting can vary depending on the chipset and the driver implementation. We see discrepancies will most often occur at high RSSI levels -30's to -60's and different Atheros based products will converge in -70's and -80's to a more aligned reporting.
We are trying our best to improve the accuracy, which is why you are seeing the change with new firmware; it should only affect the high signal reporting. It is not a hardware performance issue; it is purely reporting.
jcremin
10-15-2008, 09:02 AM
This is not what I'm seeing. I see the same discrepancy at any signal level. For example, one client is -45/-56, another is -65/-77, and yet another is -75/-88. All of the "bad" signals are on the "tower" end.
Like I mentioned, when I use an XR2 or SR2 client in a routerboard, the signals are even, or within 2db.
I'm pretty convinced there is a problem, either with the signal reporting or the transmit power of the NS2/PS2's.
Joe
Like I mentioned, when I use an XR2 or SR2 client in a routerboard, the signals are even, or within 2db.
I'm pretty convinced there is a problem, either with the signal reporting or the transmit power of the NS2/PS2's.
Joe
InoX
10-15-2008, 12:17 PM
I don't think that omni's are a good way to start :lol: Omni's can "tell"" a lot of ugly things...from my experience.
UBNT-Mike.Ford
10-16-2008, 12:02 PM
Hey Jcremin,
Since you are using MikroTik at the tower end, do this. Disable the "Extra Reporting features on the NS side. Let me know what the singals are reported as at that point.
Thanks,
Mike
Since you are using MikroTik at the tower end, do this. Disable the "Extra Reporting features on the NS side. Let me know what the singals are reported as at that point.
Thanks,
Mike
InoX
10-16-2008, 01:01 PM
it will be good a kind of signal indicators both Tx/Rx like mikrotik has...offcourse between Ubiquiti products. RSSI it's not so good/enough... something like CCQ,signal, noise floor.
UBNT-Mike.Ford
10-16-2008, 02:35 PM
Hello inoX,
We have all of this in our latest software.
Thanks,
Mike
We have all of this in our latest software.
Thanks,
Mike
InoX
10-16-2008, 04:07 PM
it is but not all in the same page :wink:
station show only Tx CCQ not Tx and Rx CCQ. NS in AP mode shows nothing really...it's good we have an uptime :lol: and what about RSSI in AP mode, what is it? 46 what? 46%? 46dBm? I'm sure it's not dBm! And why RSSI in client mode is in dBm? And you said the software has a Noise floor? It's hidden? Where is it? NS and PS are great but the software it's not quite yet.
And why is Romania, Socialist Republic of? It was 20 years ago. Buy a book or something. This is quite lack of knowledge.
Republica Socialistă România¹
Socialist Republic of Romania
←
1947 – 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania
shame on you
station show only Tx CCQ not Tx and Rx CCQ. NS in AP mode shows nothing really...it's good we have an uptime :lol: and what about RSSI in AP mode, what is it? 46 what? 46%? 46dBm? I'm sure it's not dBm! And why RSSI in client mode is in dBm? And you said the software has a Noise floor? It's hidden? Where is it? NS and PS are great but the software it's not quite yet.
And why is Romania, Socialist Republic of? It was 20 years ago. Buy a book or something. This is quite lack of knowledge.
Republica Socialistă România¹
Socialist Republic of Romania
←
1947 – 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Romania
shame on you
jcremin
10-18-2008, 08:55 PM
I don't think that omni's are a good way to start :lol: Omni's can "tell"" a lot of ugly things...from my experience.
The omni's have nothing to do with it. There could be issues in a high noise environment, but a few of them can't see a single other wireless network in the scan and are nowhere near any other 2.4 ghz equipment.
Assuming the noise is good and you're testing with one client, a single 2.4 omni should produce the exact same results as six 60 degree sectors, or three 120 degree sectors (actually better results because you don't have any other radios to interfere).
The omni's have nothing to do with it. There could be issues in a high noise environment, but a few of them can't see a single other wireless network in the scan and are nowhere near any other 2.4 ghz equipment.
Assuming the noise is good and you're testing with one client, a single 2.4 omni should produce the exact same results as six 60 degree sectors, or three 120 degree sectors (actually better results because you don't have any other radios to interfere).
jcremin
10-18-2008, 09:16 PM
Hey Jcremin,
Since you are using MikroTik at the tower end, do this. Disable the "Extra Reporting features on the NS side. Let me know what the singals are reported as at that point.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike,
I gave that a shot and it didn't seem to change anything. I should mention that I'm using B only mode. I was using EWMA, but tried optomistic and conservative which didn't seem to make a difference.
Any other ideas?
Joe
Since you are using MikroTik at the tower end, do this. Disable the "Extra Reporting features on the NS side. Let me know what the singals are reported as at that point.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike,
I gave that a shot and it didn't seem to change anything. I should mention that I'm using B only mode. I was using EWMA, but tried optomistic and conservative which didn't seem to make a difference.
Any other ideas?
Joe
InoX
10-18-2008, 09:22 PM
I don't think that omni's are a good way to start :lol: Omni's can "tell"" a lot of ugly things...from my experience.
The omni's have nothing to do with it. There could be issues in a high noise environment, but a few of them can't see a single other wireless network in the scan and are nowhere near any other 2.4 ghz equipment.
Assuming the noise is good and you're testing with one client, a single 2.4 omni should produce the exact same results as six 60 degree sectors, or three 120 degree sectors (actually better results because you don't have any other radios to interfere).
I was thinking about noise from others networks. Omni catch all this noise.
The omni's have nothing to do with it. There could be issues in a high noise environment, but a few of them can't see a single other wireless network in the scan and are nowhere near any other 2.4 ghz equipment.
Assuming the noise is good and you're testing with one client, a single 2.4 omni should produce the exact same results as six 60 degree sectors, or three 120 degree sectors (actually better results because you don't have any other radios to interfere).
I was thinking about noise from others networks. Omni catch all this noise.
jcremin
10-18-2008, 09:25 PM
I don't think that omni's are a good way to start :lol: Omni's can "tell"" a lot of ugly things...from my experience.
The omni's have nothing to do with it. There could be issues in a high noise environment, but a few of them can't see a single other wireless network in the scan and are nowhere near any other 2.4 ghz equipment.
Assuming the noise is good and you're testing with one client, a single 2.4 omni should produce the exact same results as six 60 degree sectors, or three 120 degree sectors (actually better results because you don't have any other radios to interfere).
I was thinking about noise from others networks. Omni catch all this noise.
Understandable... At least 2 of my omnis are in the -100's for noise on all channels, and are many miles out of town, basically in the woods...
In "busy" environments, I totally agree that directional antennas help a lot! Especially at lower frequencies.. I find that a 900 mhz vertical omni is almost useless in any location because the frequencies travel so far.
Joe
The omni's have nothing to do with it. There could be issues in a high noise environment, but a few of them can't see a single other wireless network in the scan and are nowhere near any other 2.4 ghz equipment.
Assuming the noise is good and you're testing with one client, a single 2.4 omni should produce the exact same results as six 60 degree sectors, or three 120 degree sectors (actually better results because you don't have any other radios to interfere).
I was thinking about noise from others networks. Omni catch all this noise.
Understandable... At least 2 of my omnis are in the -100's for noise on all channels, and are many miles out of town, basically in the woods...
In "busy" environments, I totally agree that directional antennas help a lot! Especially at lower frequencies.. I find that a 900 mhz vertical omni is almost useless in any location because the frequencies travel so far.
Joe
UBNT-Mike.Ford
10-20-2008, 01:26 PM
Hey Jcremin,
If you lock the data rate to 1Mbps and uncheck the auto box, what does the discrrpency look like?
Thanks
Mike
If you lock the data rate to 1Mbps and uncheck the auto box, what does the discrrpency look like?
Thanks
Mike
jcremin
10-26-2008, 04:23 PM
Well... The discrepency disappeared.... totally... I applied the setting and the remote device never came back online, so I'll have to drive over to the client's house tomorrow to reboot....
I don't dare try it on anyone else's until I know this was just an isolated problem...
Joe
I don't dare try it on anyone else's until I know this was just an isolated problem...
Joe
UBNT-Mike.Ford
10-27-2008, 06:05 PM
Hey Jcremin,
You set the unit to 1Mbps and it did not reconnect? Was the other unit in G only mode?
Thanks
Mike
You set the unit to 1Mbps and it did not reconnect? Was the other unit in G only mode?
Thanks
Mike
jcremin
10-27-2008, 06:17 PM
That's correct. I was changing it from my office and the PS2 was at a remote site. I'm using B-only. After a reboot, it came right back.
I'm sure it was just bad luck, but I haven't had a chance to try it again. I'll let you know what I find out.
Thanks,
Joe
I'm sure it was just bad luck, but I haven't had a chance to try it again. I'll let you know what I find out.
Thanks,
Joe
UBNT-Mike.Ford
10-28-2008, 10:40 AM
Thanks Joe,
Keep me updated.
Mike
Keep me updated.
Mike
Headbang
11-30-2008, 08:03 AM
We see exactly the same discrepancies. I generally watch the AP side to get an idea of link ability.
Another note... this makes me believe there is something off with reporting on Mikrotik's end. I have a client reporting -78 on the PS2, and -87 on the Mikrotik end. The throughput is around 4Mbps tested from a NS is the office to the PS2 using NS speed test. This is more then enough for the clients service. Ping tests to the PS2 from tower are in the 32ms for 1450byte packets. There are significant obstacles in the way (houses, large dirt mounds, trees) it has almost 0 LOS, and 4 miles. The CQQ is bad, but it all works. This seems to be the norm for UBNT equip, everything logical says it shouldn't work, then it just works!
Another note... this makes me believe there is something off with reporting on Mikrotik's end. I have a client reporting -78 on the PS2, and -87 on the Mikrotik end. The throughput is around 4Mbps tested from a NS is the office to the PS2 using NS speed test. This is more then enough for the clients service. Ping tests to the PS2 from tower are in the 32ms for 1450byte packets. There are significant obstacles in the way (houses, large dirt mounds, trees) it has almost 0 LOS, and 4 miles. The CQQ is bad, but it all works. This seems to be the norm for UBNT equip, everything logical says it shouldn't work, then it just works!
UBNT-Mike.Ford
12-01-2008, 01:52 PM
Hey Headband,
Thanks for the info. Still strange though.
Mike
Thanks for the info. Still strange though.
Mike
jcremin
12-06-2008, 11:30 AM
Mike,
I've been busy and am finally getting back around to trying to figure this out.
I have attached a screenshot below of the MT side of two of my AP's. Both are 411's with XR2's attached to 12dbi omni's. As you can see, every single client is reporting much higher signal than the AP is. The only client that isn't an NS2 or PS2 is the first one on the top, and that one is an old CM9 card, so lower signal at the AP would be expected because of the card's low output. The rest of the devices should be virtually symetrical, within a couple DBs.
http://starwire.net/external/signals.jpg
One more thing that I've been finding out lately, is that the UBNT devices don't want to ever go about 1mbps. As you can see, all but 1 device is 11mbps from the AP to the client, but most are stuck at 1mbps for the client's upload. The few that are reading higher are ones that I changed to 11 within AirOS. All of them have the "auto" box checked, but they never want to modulate up, they just get stuck at 1 unless changing it to 11, then as you can see, a few of them have dropped back to 5.5.
I have a handful of other AP's, but they have a much larger variety of client equipment. Looking at them, they all show the exact same signal discrepency for UBNT clients.
I have pretty much ruled out the AP side. All of the XR2's are grounded and I know they're not going "deaf". Some non-ubnt equipment reports exactly where you would expect by looking at the tx power and comparing the two. I don't suspect the omni's to be a problem. One of my AP's is in the middle of the woods and is protected from interference.
That leads me to believe that either the PS2's & NS2's are not outputting at full power, or they are simply reporting the signal to be much stronger than it really is.
What else can I do to provide information that we can use to solve this?
Thanks,
Joe
I've been busy and am finally getting back around to trying to figure this out.
I have attached a screenshot below of the MT side of two of my AP's. Both are 411's with XR2's attached to 12dbi omni's. As you can see, every single client is reporting much higher signal than the AP is. The only client that isn't an NS2 or PS2 is the first one on the top, and that one is an old CM9 card, so lower signal at the AP would be expected because of the card's low output. The rest of the devices should be virtually symetrical, within a couple DBs.
http://starwire.net/external/signals.jpg
One more thing that I've been finding out lately, is that the UBNT devices don't want to ever go about 1mbps. As you can see, all but 1 device is 11mbps from the AP to the client, but most are stuck at 1mbps for the client's upload. The few that are reading higher are ones that I changed to 11 within AirOS. All of them have the "auto" box checked, but they never want to modulate up, they just get stuck at 1 unless changing it to 11, then as you can see, a few of them have dropped back to 5.5.
I have a handful of other AP's, but they have a much larger variety of client equipment. Looking at them, they all show the exact same signal discrepency for UBNT clients.
I have pretty much ruled out the AP side. All of the XR2's are grounded and I know they're not going "deaf". Some non-ubnt equipment reports exactly where you would expect by looking at the tx power and comparing the two. I don't suspect the omni's to be a problem. One of my AP's is in the middle of the woods and is protected from interference.
That leads me to believe that either the PS2's & NS2's are not outputting at full power, or they are simply reporting the signal to be much stronger than it really is.
What else can I do to provide information that we can use to solve this?
Thanks,
Joe
jcremin
12-08-2008, 02:26 PM
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions?
rconaway
12-08-2008, 03:28 PM
What algorithm most are you using? Set it to Conservative and let us know what happens.
jcremin
12-08-2008, 04:22 PM
Tried them all.... No real difference. :(
UBNT-Mike.Ford
12-08-2008, 04:39 PM
Hey Jcremin,
Have you tried backing off the power of the units by 3 - 5dB? Also can you turn off AutoACK and set it to 110% of the distance?
What firmware is on these guys?
Thanks,
Mike
Have you tried backing off the power of the units by 3 - 5dB? Also can you turn off AutoACK and set it to 110% of the distance?
What firmware is on these guys?
Thanks,
Mike
jcremin
12-08-2008, 06:36 PM
I'll try those both of those and let you know what I find.
The firmware is anywhere from 2.x to the current 3.2.3-rc.
Joe
The firmware is anywhere from 2.x to the current 3.2.3-rc.
Joe
jcremin
12-08-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm assuming you meant make those changes on the UBNT client side, right?
The only change I saw was an expected drop of 3-5 db as heard by the AP. The ack setting didn't seem to make a difference.
Any other ideas?
The only change I saw was an expected drop of 3-5 db as heard by the AP. The ack setting didn't seem to make a difference.
Any other ideas?
rconaway
12-08-2008, 07:14 PM
Are you running SNMP on the system?
guidonet
12-08-2008, 07:50 PM
Try to fix data rate on XR2´s side.
rconaway
12-08-2008, 08:08 PM
guidonet, that's the problem. I have a similiar issue with a radio but haven't had time to troubleshoot it. There are a lot of variables, s/n on either side for example. If he tried all three modes, then I would like to see s/n on both sides next.
guidonet
12-08-2008, 08:46 PM
I have experimented many micro cuts when I release the negotiation of speed. Often they do not manage to surpass the speed bases on the negotiation and must recommence… for that reason they remain at the low one. When fixed a superior speed like minimum, begins at least from there and maintains that speed.
UBNT-Mike.Ford
12-09-2008, 10:29 AM
Hey Jcremin,
Can you set the units to B/G Mixed instead of B only?
Thanks,
Mike
Can you set the units to B/G Mixed instead of B only?
Thanks,
Mike
johnk
12-10-2008, 05:52 PM
All of my UBNT clients show about 10db better on the CPE side.
Hi Joe,
I noticed this over a year ago. The problem still exists.
Here are some threads discussing this:
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=203
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
It would be really be nice if Ubiquiti took this problem
seriously and devoted some time in debugging
and fixing it.
There are so many good things about the Ubiquity
products...... now only if they could fix this problem!
Mike, please, please, please.... help.
John
Hi Joe,
I noticed this over a year ago. The problem still exists.
Here are some threads discussing this:
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=203
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
It would be really be nice if Ubiquiti took this problem
seriously and devoted some time in debugging
and fixing it.
There are so many good things about the Ubiquity
products...... now only if they could fix this problem!
Mike, please, please, please.... help.
John
jcremin
12-11-2008, 06:03 PM
Are you running SNMP on the system?
No, I'm not. What did you have in mind?
No, I'm not. What did you have in mind?
jcremin
12-11-2008, 06:04 PM
Try to fix data rate on XR2´s side.
I don't see how it would have helped me in B mode, but I tried an no change.
I don't see how it would have helped me in B mode, but I tried an no change.
jcremin
12-11-2008, 06:08 PM
Hey Jcremin,
Can you set the units to B/G Mixed instead of B only?
Thanks,
Mike
Gave that a shot... Things got even worse. My noise floor on all frequencies was a little worse (but I expected that). Packet throughput on a few of the clients was horrible (like 30-200 and in B mode they were 6000-7000). Tried limiting the data rates while in B/G... no difference.
I think I've tried almost every setting on both sides and I'm obviously getting quite frustrated as nothing seems to be helping. Any other ideas?
Can you set the units to B/G Mixed instead of B only?
Thanks,
Mike
Gave that a shot... Things got even worse. My noise floor on all frequencies was a little worse (but I expected that). Packet throughput on a few of the clients was horrible (like 30-200 and in B mode they were 6000-7000). Tried limiting the data rates while in B/G... no difference.
I think I've tried almost every setting on both sides and I'm obviously getting quite frustrated as nothing seems to be helping. Any other ideas?
UBNT-Mike.Ford
12-11-2008, 06:10 PM
Hey Jon,
Go back to B mode only.
Next set the fragmentation threshold and CTS threshold to 768 and let me know.
Mike
Go back to B mode only.
Next set the fragmentation threshold and CTS threshold to 768 and let me know.
Mike
jcremin
12-11-2008, 06:17 PM
All of my UBNT clients show about 10db better on the CPE side.
Hi Joe,
I noticed this over a year ago. The problem still exists.
Here are some threads discussing this:
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=203
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
Mike, please, please, please.... help.
John
John, I read through those posts and they do sound very similar to what I'm seeing. One user said "Performance seams to agree with AP levels." I agree with that statement and I'm wondering if the problem is simply that the UBNT devices are reporting the wrong signal to us.
I don't have hardware laying around to try to do a side by side test with something else that would closely resemble the signals we should be seeing with the NS and PS, but that would be an interesting test.
Hi Joe,
I noticed this over a year ago. The problem still exists.
Here are some threads discussing this:
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=203
http://ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
Mike, please, please, please.... help.
John
John, I read through those posts and they do sound very similar to what I'm seeing. One user said "Performance seams to agree with AP levels." I agree with that statement and I'm wondering if the problem is simply that the UBNT devices are reporting the wrong signal to us.
I don't have hardware laying around to try to do a side by side test with something else that would closely resemble the signals we should be seeing with the NS and PS, but that would be an interesting test.
jcremin
12-11-2008, 06:22 PM
Hey Jon,
Go back to B mode only.
Next set the fragmentation threshold and CTS threshold to 768 and let me know.
Mike
Mike,
That didn't seem to help either. One interesting thing I have noticed from time to time: Sometimes when the client associates, the signals look pretty close to each other, then after 20 seconds or so, the signal at the client side changes to show 10-15 db better.
Joe
Go back to B mode only.
Next set the fragmentation threshold and CTS threshold to 768 and let me know.
Mike
Mike,
That didn't seem to help either. One interesting thing I have noticed from time to time: Sometimes when the client associates, the signals look pretty close to each other, then after 20 seconds or so, the signal at the client side changes to show 10-15 db better.
Joe
johnk
12-11-2008, 06:24 PM
John, I read through those posts and they do sound very similar to what I'm seeing. One user said "Performance seams to agree with AP levels." I agree with that statement and I'm wondering if the problem is simply that the UBNT devices are reporting the wrong signal to us.
I don't have hardware laying around to try to do a side by side test with something else that would closely resemble the signals we should be seeing with the NS and PS, but that would be an interesting test.
I recently bought an RF power meter and will
do some tests and report back. I'll do the
test on a LS2 since it has a MMCX connector
that I can plug directly into the RF meter.
I'll also do a test on some other hardware,
including some Deliberant units and Linksys home routers.
This will give us an idea of how the output RF power
compares to radios from other manufacturers.
I just need to find some time. :-)
John
I don't have hardware laying around to try to do a side by side test with something else that would closely resemble the signals we should be seeing with the NS and PS, but that would be an interesting test.
I recently bought an RF power meter and will
do some tests and report back. I'll do the
test on a LS2 since it has a MMCX connector
that I can plug directly into the RF meter.
I'll also do a test on some other hardware,
including some Deliberant units and Linksys home routers.
This will give us an idea of how the output RF power
compares to radios from other manufacturers.
I just need to find some time. :-)
John
jcremin
12-13-2008, 01:52 PM
I setup access so UBNT could take a look at my AP and clients.
@Mike: Do you have an idea when someone will be able to take a look at it?
@Mike: Do you have an idea when someone will be able to take a look at it?
UBNT-Mike.Ford
12-15-2008, 10:59 AM
Hey Joe,
Im asking them to look at it again. Sorry for the delay.
Mike
Im asking them to look at it again. Sorry for the delay.
Mike
jcremin
12-15-2008, 11:32 AM
No problem, I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that they are able to make something of it.
Thanks,
Joe
Thanks,
Joe
jcremin
01-04-2009, 07:03 PM
Hi Mike,
I haven't heard anything about this in a long time. I sent you an email too. Any updates?
I haven't heard anything about this in a long time. I sent you an email too. Any updates?
UBNT-Mike.Ford
01-05-2009, 11:24 AM
Hey Joe,
Asking my software team to respond as I left it with them.
Thanks,
Mike
Asking my software team to respond as I left it with them.
Thanks,
Mike
drwho17
06-24-2009, 04:40 PM
We are kicking the tires on UBNT gear, and appear to be seeing this discrepancy in the latest firmwares. Tranzeo clients have roughly the same signal on the AP as CPE, while the PS2 has about a 10 db differential, the AP's are Ubiquity Bullet. Can anyone confirm or deny this is still impacting them?
Edit: put openwrt on the PS2 I'm testing, and it has the same issues. I can't set the transmit power over 16db either. I'm exactly 10 different though, 80 on the CPE, 90 on the AP. If I had 10db more transmit on the radio I'd be better.
Tried a Tranzeo CPQ-19 from my home, 83 on CPE, 90 on the AP, happy about that, means my problem isn't CPE related, it's my antenna/antenna placement.
AirOS reads 76 on CPE, 86 on AP. Ugg, I have the radio at 26db, 17db antenna, AP is at 23/13db antenna. AP should be within 1. I will bring a Tranzeo to my home tomorrow and test, and verify the Ubiquities are low on power.
Tested in the office lab, all radios turned down to 10db.
PS2 36 CPE, 43 AP.
NS2 Loco - 35 CPE, 32-33 AP.
NS2 - 30 CPE, 33-34 AP.
Edit: put openwrt on the PS2 I'm testing, and it has the same issues. I can't set the transmit power over 16db either. I'm exactly 10 different though, 80 on the CPE, 90 on the AP. If I had 10db more transmit on the radio I'd be better.
Tried a Tranzeo CPQ-19 from my home, 83 on CPE, 90 on the AP, happy about that, means my problem isn't CPE related, it's my antenna/antenna placement.
AirOS reads 76 on CPE, 86 on AP. Ugg, I have the radio at 26db, 17db antenna, AP is at 23/13db antenna. AP should be within 1. I will bring a Tranzeo to my home tomorrow and test, and verify the Ubiquities are low on power.
Tested in the office lab, all radios turned down to 10db.
PS2 36 CPE, 43 AP.
NS2 Loco - 35 CPE, 32-33 AP.
NS2 - 30 CPE, 33-34 AP.
Headbang
07-12-2009, 10:34 AM
I can't find the time to do more testing... but I have done direct replacements of LS2's with Bullet2HP's and replaced PS2's with Bullet2HP's.
Before I go any further, I need to point out that by changing PS2's to B2HP's (with 24db grid) I have significantly reduced the potential noise. This could account for some or all variations.
When changing ls2's to b2hp's I notice that b2hp's report withing 1-2db of the AP's, this is using the same firmware version as the original LS2 (v3.4). The original LS2's had a 10db+ reported difference.
ps2-b2hp - Signals before -77/-86, Signal now with b2hp & 24db Teletronics Grid -68/-67
This difference was more then I expected. I understand the client rx difference, 16db ant on PS2, 24db grid now. The ap rx seems excessive.
I checked the spectrum while driving/walking and have a -96 noise floor at worst point between AP and client. Only real interference stops at 2432. I run at 2462 with a 4 pole cavity filter tuned to 2462 on the AP, the sector is a pacwireless 20dbi 45deg. Tested old and new @ 26dbm, 23dbm, and run the link @ 18dbm normaly. AP has 50FT LMR400 between XR2 and sector. All tests acted exactly as one would expect, both rx & tx changed accordingly.
Before I go any further, I need to point out that by changing PS2's to B2HP's (with 24db grid) I have significantly reduced the potential noise. This could account for some or all variations.
When changing ls2's to b2hp's I notice that b2hp's report withing 1-2db of the AP's, this is using the same firmware version as the original LS2 (v3.4). The original LS2's had a 10db+ reported difference.
ps2-b2hp - Signals before -77/-86, Signal now with b2hp & 24db Teletronics Grid -68/-67
This difference was more then I expected. I understand the client rx difference, 16db ant on PS2, 24db grid now. The ap rx seems excessive.
I checked the spectrum while driving/walking and have a -96 noise floor at worst point between AP and client. Only real interference stops at 2432. I run at 2462 with a 4 pole cavity filter tuned to 2462 on the AP, the sector is a pacwireless 20dbi 45deg. Tested old and new @ 26dbm, 23dbm, and run the link @ 18dbm normaly. AP has 50FT LMR400 between XR2 and sector. All tests acted exactly as one would expect, both rx & tx changed accordingly.
