gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
| reply to webformix
Re: [Equipment] Tranzeo Class Action Lawsuit or Boycott
The fact of the matter is bridged is faster in terms of processor usage. Once you add packet shaping, connection tracking, and other bandwith limiting factors to a device you add overhead to that device. This seems to be the case. And as Tranzeo points out it's not designed for that kind of usage. It's simply out of umph in the processor, and what memory it has available to keep track of the connections going through it. Bridged doesn't suffer this problem as it doesn't have to keep track of it.
PPS is related to CPU usage (and memory) in terms of keeping track of all of those connections that are being NAT'ed by that unit. Hope that makes sense |
|
nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX | reply to superdog
Actually what I was wondering about is how does keeping the CPE in bridge mode (I assume that is what is means) and using an external router will relieve the load off the CPE of a large number of open connections. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| said by nevtxjustin  :Actually what I was wondering about is how does keeping the CPE in bridge mode (I assume that is what is means) and using an external router will relieve the load off the CPE of a large number of open connections. Simple network engineering. It requires more processor to disassemble a packet to layer 3 then layer 2. It's one reason even top dollar Cisco switches will see performance drops when you start routing instead of switching/bridging.
Now add NAT and the connection tracking required for it as gunther mentioned. Unlike regular bridging or even routing where the packet is forwarded and forgotten about with NAT you have to keep track of which computer sent which packet and where so that when the response packet is received you send it to the correct internal IP address.
Connection tracking of course requires memory so a ultra low end cpe will not be able to support a large number of connections as it runs out of memory.
Going back to the Op, when you bought the CPE what was represented in terms capability and were these verbal representations or written? Does the unit meet what was represented or not.
Going back to the Sunfire example, if the Sunfire was sold with a max speed of 65 are you able to get 65 out of it? Now if you want to do 110, it's not Pontiac's fault you blew something up since the car was only stated to go 65.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
webformix
join:2009-01-25
Bend, OR
| reply to gunther_01
My main problem is that Tranzeo's sales literature and product manual state the CPQ series, and I quote offers "Full QOS on this client device gives you all the control necessary for a smooth running wireless network. Turn on the auto-classification for
worry free shaping of real-time, interactive traffic, such as gaming,
VoIP and video teleconferencing."
Over and over on their website they tout the CPQ's QoS and routing features, while the unit wasn't even designed from a hardware standpoint to accommodate the connections required for even 1 or 2 major websites (cnn + facebook = fail) to load without running out of memory and having issues. They designed this product from the ground up to fail.
If the device can't handle even moderate QoS and routing, then they shouldn't have marketed + sold this unit as such. This in my mind constitutes false advertising. |
|
webformix
join:2009-01-25
Bend, OR
| reply to cmaenginsb
The CPQ series (from what I've been told by an engineer) has no memory for NAT/router/QoS functions, unlike the 6000 series. If they had just spent a couple extra bucks on 4-8mb's of memory we wouldn't be having this conversation. Tranzeo now says they're working on a revised CPQ that will have more memory to resolve this issue; but there is no software fix available. If they think I'm going to shell out another $150K for radios to fix this issue, they're going to hear from my lawyer first. |
|
kewlkeed
Grouch
Premium
join:2005-02-05
Knowlton, QC
| reply to webformix
I'll even vouch that there's some serious false advertising and bullshit going on. Using the Pontiac analogy, they stated it can do 100KMH, but when you go over 75 it starts to violently shake and buck, and at 100 it MAY run but most of the time the engine stalls out and backfires etc.
So yep it reaches what they say it will... But handles like complete, absolute, crap. They know it, they refuse to admit it.
I try to stay back from this thread as most know I have a massive beef against Tranzeo and some of its shady methods. Its radios being technically inferior being one thing, some of the things done/recommended by their staff being another. (I won't dive into that one, but it involves the staff making very shady suggestions on how to do things with their equipment)
In the end, our money walked far far away from them.
--
Justin - DSLR resident grouch and Mr Negativity
TSI Fanboy - "Dontchya wish your 'net was hot like mine! Ohhh Dontchya!"
Have a nice day! |
|
nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| reply to cmaenginsb
said by cmaenginsb :said by nevtxjustin :Actually what I was wondering about is how does keeping the CPE in bridge mode (I assume that is what is means) and using an external router will relieve the load off the CPE of a large number of open connections. Simple network engineering. It requires more processor to disassemble a packet to layer 3 then layer 2. True, though, I was just wondering if it was an additional short coming unique to the Tranzeo radios. |
|
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
| I wouldnt say it's unique other then it's just how it is.
Personally they (Tranzeo) got cheap because of the bean counters, didnt put in enough RAM in the first place. Low and behold the device crashes from a lack of memory which is needed to do NAT on a larger (albeit still small) scale. |
|
tranzeo
join:2009-10-26
| reply to webformix
Guys, this is the same hardware we have been selling for 5 years. Same conditions apply since the day we starting selling. If you need to open 4000 connections, use a 6000. Otherwise the CPQ will do fine. It doesn't crash, it just has slower throughput because it doesn't have enough connections.
This limit only exists on the CPQ/SL2 series. It does not apply to any other model.
Brett/Superwisp, no, we don't have a reset button on that hardware. If you buy a bunch on EBay, and you don't have the password, send us some proof you own the units. More people like the fact that it doesn't need one, and if the unit is stolen, there is some prevention of it being used. And, as for radios made before July 2006 not having DFS channels, that is the result of the FCC rules.
Go ahead and flame us for making a simple, low cost unit with a 5 year warranty. But we've been making it for years, and people can rely on our models being in production for a long time. How many other models are still on the market and working after 5 years?
Anyways, if you need a lot of connections in 2.4, use a 6000. If not, use an SL2 or CPQ19. We are reviewing these comments with the "bean counters" and engineering. Again, please bring your comments to feedback@tranzeo.com or our on-line forum too. Thank you to webformix for forwarding us the thread so we could address the issue here as well.
|
|
penypinch
Premium
join:2007-09-07
Henning, MN
| reply to webformix
Tranzeo.... that sounds like the same no information comments as the "support" gives. When will you be done reviewing and start fixing issues?
I kept one Tr-6000 (2.4...000B6B4CEE33) AP and have 5 clients on it and it still runs 15 to 25% errors on clean line of site on the TX side of the CPE (newest firmware,0060B35E2D49) lol I keep it to remind me of the great support in correcting issues.
Thanks Tranzeo for showing the way to better Equipment and Support. Ubiquiti has run great and the problems were quickly addressed and corrected. I have had no problems for a long time thanks to Ubiquiti
--
Mitch
support@abetterwireless.com |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
3 edits | reply to tranzeo
"Tranzeo" (Is this Damian?), I think it's great that you extended the warranty period (though you still insist on timing the warranty from the date of manufacture, which isn't actually legal in the United States). And I do use a lot of your hardware, as you know. But the model confusion has caused us quite a few problems (When I take a TR-5a-20f off the shelf, will it work on 5.4 GHz? Will it allow fixed channels on 5.3 GHz? Can't tell from the model number or the label), as has the reset issue. (No matter how many times we send a receipt, Tranzeo tech support treats us as if we've stolen the gear. One would hope that the company would trust a dealer who's been with them the better part of a decade, but they seem unwilling to develop a real relationship with resellers of their products.) And even when we've diagnosed problems and even pinpointed what causes them, we still are sometimes told by tech support that they've never heard of the issue. I really think that Tranzeo could do well by treating WISPs more like partners and opening the kimono a bit more.
If I were head of marketing for Tranzeo, I bet I could retain quite a few of the WISPs who are fleeing to Mikrotik and Canopy by making a few very simple and inexpensive changes in the way Tranzeo relates to WISPs. |
|
penypinch
Premium
join:2007-09-07
Henning, MN
| reply to webformix
Superwisp...
I see you have had the pleasure of dealing with Damian as well.....
This and the poor performance of the 900 equipment (Tr-900) and the hard time getting support is why we left and found Ubiquiti.
We agree with you on "The way Tranzeo relates", yet I think after how long they have been treating us the way they have, could be too little too long.
Superwisp I challenge you to try UBNT products like the bullet or bulletM and see the difference. It is night and day from Tranzeo and the products have support with them..
--
Mitch
support@abetterwireless.com |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
3 edits | "penypinch," I recently did try the Ubiquiti Bullet (high power 2.4 GHz model) and was underwhelmed. Very sensitive to any sort of interference; poor weather sealing (we had to augment it); not certified with antennas with sufficient gain; temperature range inadequate for cold weather. (Tranzeo definitely has them beat there.) I'd give it a B-. I wish that Deliberant was still making RTL8186-based radios; they were much better than anything Atheros-based.
The Tranzeo 900 MHz units do have problems in noisy areas (they have less range than 2.4 GHz even in areas with trees), but this is due partially to the FCC regs (4 watt EIRP limit) and partially to a loss of SNR in the frequency conversion circuitry on the card. If Tranzeo had a "native" 900 MHz radio with a tunable receive channel preselector and a superheterodyne front end (rather than Atheros' direct conversion) it would be better. But also, no doubt, more expensive.
As I've said, though, the biggest problem that Tranzeo has is its difficulty in making WISPs feel like valued customers and partners. Which is ironic, because Tranzeo actually started as a WISP itself! I've hung out with some of their employees at trade shows, and they're very nice people (Damian's great). I am not sure why the company as a whole has this issue. I'd love to help them fix it. |
|
penypinch
Premium
join:2007-09-07
Henning, MN
| reply to webformix
I have the Bullet2Hp's and they are working great for us. Evan last winter in -20 ? We are looking forward to the Bullet2M
So far everything Ubiquiti we have tried has far out performed the Tranzeo equipment and is "still working". Ubiquiti support even listens and admits to "known issues", which is much more than Tranzeo "Damian" ever did for us.
But, I understand your feelings as well.
Thanks for the reply and input
--
Mitch
support@abetterwireless.com |
|
maxit
join:2009-02-22
Fort St James, BC
| We've used Tranzeo products for years, and though they are not without issues they've managed to perform at temperatures below -45C and coated with 3" of solid ice. We still use two old TR4500s that have performed faithfully over the years.
We are also trying out the Bullet for CPE, as we service some places where we know the radios will never be coming back, the customers are likely to be unable to pay after their prepaid amount expires. The Bullet also lets up use up dozens of old 15db grids that are simply taking up space otherwise.
I can also pick up the phone, order Tranzeo and I will get my radios. Something ubnt can't seem to do in Canada. I've been following the BulletM thread with interest, but it's something I can't even GET here to try out. |
|
tranzeo
join:2009-10-26
| reply to SuperWISP
Warranty is based on date of sale or date of manufacturer, which ever gives the greater period of time. As we have told you several times, just send a list of the equipment you bought once and you'll never have to go through it again. I even sent you a template to save time. Even Investor #2 in the company has to go through this.
The question of 5.4 relates to the FCC rules, which I sent you chapter and verse a few times. If the product was not certified for operation in that band, we had to disable the channels. The FCC rules also require that you can not set the channel in 5.4. It is a dumb rule, but it is the rule.
I can't change that. If the FCC changes the rules to allow a channel plan like ETSI does, we'll be all over that believe me.
Please bring your comments over to the Tranzo Forum. The more feedback I get, the more ammo I have resources. |
|
tranzeo
join:2009-10-26 | reply to SuperWISP
So, head over the Tranzeo Forum and post in the "why doesn't Tranzeo do" group  |
|
Diddy1
join:2003-07-19
Sidney, NE
1 edit | reply to gunther_01
said by gunther_01 :. You are asking a lot of the processor to do NAT and QOS on a cheapish CPE. Well, compared to other CPE manufacturers, Tranzeo isn't that cheapish in price. But performance??? Tranzeo still thinks their outdated gear is gold but seems to be getting equalled or out-performed by the "others" in lower price ranges.
I also will add so I'm not too negative, that the tranzeo gear, hardware wise, does seem to hold up well over time. Seems pretty durable, except the lousy Cat5 "boots" to deal with.
--
if you fail to plan, you plan to fail |
|
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
| reply to webformix
I know they aren't that cheap in price (frankly OVER priced for what it is) I don't use them since I have never liked their software, it didn't have the features I wanted when I started my WISP and others did, and I don't care for the "boot" either.
I would imagine the higher price helps offset the RMA's from a 5 year warranty for Tranzeo  |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to Diddy1
said by Diddy1 :I also will add so I'm not too negative, that the tranzeo gear, hardware wise, does seem to hold up well over time. Seems pretty durable, except the lousy Cat5 "boots" to deal with. I must give them credit here (Tranzeo). After Katrina hit the Gulf coast, I went down to help out. One of my "assignments" was to help a small WISP on Dolphin Island in AL. It was run by a woman who lived there and the network itself was set up by the infamous "Johnny-O". At the time, Johnny was a big MT fan for AP's and Tranzeo for the CPE's.
The Island itself was WASTED!. There were off shore drilling platforms washed up on the beach and so much sand had washed ashore and blown inland that it looked like a winter storm had dumped about 3 feet of snow. The sand was EVERYWHERE, in everything and covering streets, curbs and in some places, even buildings!.
Anyway, I had a list of locations that the customers CPE's and the AP's were supposed to be. During the storm, it literally ripped 80% of the CPE's off of the roofs and mounts they were supposed to be on. In all the cases except for one, the CPE's survived!
I followed the CAT5 at one location from the business across the parking lot. The CPE was buried under a huge pile of sand, and it took me almost 10 minutes to dig it out, but once I did, it started to work right away. Some of these units survived falls from over 2 stories and still worked. Most of these units were the CPQ type (I think??), so hats off to them for durability.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net
|
|
