Your scan looked clean.... so IMHO it's more likely that by decreasing the channel width you've increased the modulation (narrower channel = higher spectral density = better Rx signal) which means higher throughput. But it could be something adjacent that you didn't see in the scan too.
Is this the site that you had throughput problems with and the units were mounted almost back to back ? Did you ever shield those ?
Good memory, I think you are thinking of a connection I setup for some apartments almost a year ago maybe? It was a 300' link with power turned all the way down.
This is separate.
The 6mile PTP got 40mb at 10mhz
The 2 mile PTP gets 20mb at 10mhz (which passes through the 6mile PTP link)
Now testing from my house, I am not sure where the bottle neck is, the link to my silo, or the link from the silo to the city.
Does the bandwidth tests on the UBNT radios work well? Reliable? I tried using that but they didn't match up with my live tests from what I could tell.
The NanoBridge link is for my backhaul to my new POP. So I'd like to get as much of the bandwidth that I am paying for there. (50mb/5mb)
The link to my house, is just for myself at the moment, while I would like to get 50/5, it's not needed because I will hopefully be selling accounts from the main POP and using up the 50/5 anyway.
The NanoBridge link is for my backhaul to my new POP. So I'd like to get as much of the bandwidth that I am paying for there. (50mb/5mb)
The link to my house, is just for myself at the moment, while I would like to get 50/5, it's not needed because I will hopefully be selling accounts from the main POP and using up the 50/5 anyway.
Yea I know how you feel
I have a 120 megabit on a gigE access fibre coming in the next few days, and the very best I can do to my own house is 9 megabit over a Fresnel encroached 900mhz link 8 kilometers long that is primarily used for maintenance, and offsite backing up of all 14 different servers that run for my WISP. -- OptionsDSL Wireless Internet »www.optionsdsl.ca
Ouch.. The main reason for me starting link was to serve ME. Once I figured there is a chance I can make a profit, even a small amount to cover costs, I went for it.
I have around 20-40 people on a waiting list in my head that want it or are very intersted in it. So now I need to get some more gear up, setup my routers for customers/QoS and get going.
Ouch.. The main reason for me starting link was to serve ME. Once I figured there is a chance I can make a profit, even a small amount to cover costs, I went for it.
Thats exactly how my WISP was born.. -- OptionsDSL Wireless Internet »www.optionsdsl.ca
Does the bandwidth tests on the UBNT radios work well? Reliable? I tried using that but they didn't match up with my live tests from what I could tell.
I find it's is overly optimistic and too short to be real. IMHO Mikrotik's is marginally more accurate and you can run it for an hour if you want. I use MT's BWTest as a benchmark but not as a direct indication of the real throughput I expect.
Ouch.. The main reason for me starting link was to serve ME. Once I figured there is a chance I can make a profit, even a small amount to cover costs, I went for it.
SO many people dont know about the discovery tool. I have been using it more and more to manage the network rather than using the dude lately.
My network is routed, so I cant use it, but it does get a lot of use when my partner cant remember if he preprogrammed a radio or not during an intstall. lol -- OptionsDSL Wireless Internet »www.optionsdsl.ca
I have a few more questions for those that are still following this thread...
The area I live in has many hills, lakes, and trees. There is another WISP around here that has some 900mhz gear, and a 2.4 omni, both Canopy. So 900mhz is out, and 2.4 is sketchy at best.
I was planning on using 5ghz for both backhaul and distribution. BUT, since the area is so hilly with trees, I will need LOS for each CPE. I am thinking about setting up multiple smaller POPs in a small area.
The lake area measures about 2.5miles x 1.5 miles. I was thinking of having 3 or even 4 towers around this area. I have the areas planned out that can cover many homes, but what is that going to do to my radio spectrum?
Especially if the backhauls and customer radios will both be on 5ghz? Do I change out to 11ghz for backhauls? or 3ghz? Or will having so many that close not work at all anyway?
The green is areas I think I should be able to serve via 5ghz/LOS, with some home owner towers I've talked to and climbed.
All doing so buy a bunch of links all over the place, the only other way to get around this is if I had a bunch of money to build 2 or 3 200' towers on each end of the lake.. But I don't, so this is what I have come up with.
Look like it may be worth a shot? Or a cluster f*** and it will be a pain?
It is already a pain, but, I have emails from about 35 people just this past weekend when they heard I have it working at my house already...
I wouldn't rule out 2.4 so quickly. The hilly and tree covered terrain will actually work to your advantage to help block the signal from the other WISP. Plus this looks like a pretty remote area. Yes, there will probably be lots of home routers and such, but many people use 2.4 ghz successfully in much more urban areas than you are proposing.
Personally, I'd start with both 5ghz and 2.4ghz. 5ghz for backhaul and as many LOS customers as you can. 2.4 ghz for everyone who has a couple trees in the way. Keep your AP's fairly low so they aren't picking up crap from a long distance away, and you'll probably be fine.
Ive learned that downtilt is your friend in 2.4ghz. Downtilt your 2.4 stuff if you use it, dont shoot for the horizon, because there is a lot of crap on it. -- OptionsDSL Wireless Internet »www.optionsdsl.ca
Sorry I'm late to the party, but what channels are the 2 links on currently (city link and house link) and what is the strength that the 2 colo'd radios can see each other on the relay link? The throughput drop you see going to your house could be self-interference. Just something to keep in mind!
Hal brings up a good point as all of the plastic-cased commodity radios are not engineered to be closely co-located. The issue is with both the case and the front-end filtering in the radios. These radios didn't get cheap by using top-end components.
The general rule is to mount them as far apart as practical. For most applications and circumstances, this means 10 ft. horizontally as that is the length of strut channel. There is a little more leeway for vertical separation mounting, but 10 ft. is recommended as well.
RF channel-wise, the same...as far apart as possible.
Metal cases or shields are required. The RF Armor products address this issue:
Antennas are important. A high-performance link antenna will have a precision solid surface, a shield kit and a hemispherical radome (not flat radome if windy). You are talking some money for those extra bits of gear, but it allows closer mounting of the radios so it is a trade-off. -- Many believe, but few will question...I decline to be blind.
These are huge. Is this dish overkill for my 5.5mile link?
Personally, I'd say it is overkill, but a little overkill is usually a good thing. It leaves more flexibility down the road. I use the 2' rocketdish for much longer links than that. I wish they made a 1' RD as well. That would be perfect for short links, but then most people just use a panel antenna at the lower gains.
Yea, I will always have a use for it down the road in the future if I get a longer link. I just have a little more work to do now to make sure this guy is stable.
These are huge. Is this dish overkill for my 5.5mile link?
Personally, I'd say it is overkill, but a little overkill is usually a good thing. It leaves more flexibility down the road. I use the 2' rocketdish for much longer links than that. I wish they made a 1' RD as well. That would be perfect for short links, but then most people just use a panel antenna at the lower gains.
I really wish they did too. It would be perfect, the 2 ft dishes have a lot of surface area to them. a 1 or 1.5 ft would be glorious!
These are huge. Is this dish overkill for my 5.5mile link?
I just hung one of two going up yesterday morning for a 12.5km link (7.7 miles). But for 5.5 miles I would have used nano bridges. I have 2 -58 links with nanobridge M25s at almost 7 miles.
But to each his own. -- OptionsDSL Wireless Internet »www.optionsdsl.ca
I just installed them today. -48 power level, Pulled in my full 50/5 internet connection, time to call them and crank it up to 100/100
Is the Rocket's hardware better than the nanobridge? Not just power level at longer distance, but stability and pps/throughput etc? "Carrier class" like the box says?
I felt like I was cheaping out using a nanobridge for my backhaul. There is another wisp here that nobody is happy with, I didn't want to go down a similar path and do things cheap, but I don't need to waste money where not needed either.
As I said in my other post. That is not a suitable mount point. That dish is going to work the crap out of that one leg and tear it from your roof. When it rips your roof apart, consider yourself warned.
Also with dual polarity dishes it is important to keep them level in the horizontal plane (hence the level on the dish). -- »www.wirelessdatanet.net
Im not gonna lie to you, that doesnt look like its gonna last there, as I mentioned, and as gunther_01 also mentions. It will literally drive the screws right out of the roof over time.
EDIT: I saw your post about it being heavily lagged/bolted into the roof, so thats good.
As for nanobridges as back hauls, the other ISP was to blame, not the nanobridges, I have several as back hauls that work fine, the CPU inside a nanobridge is the same as a rocketM5, with less powerful TX amp, less memory but I think that its generally only important in PTMP scenarios to have more RAM in a radio. All things/signals being equal Ive seen the same performance in both a Rocket and a nanobridge link. -- OptionsDSL Wireless Internet »www.optionsdsl.ca
