sarpkaya
join:2008-03-04
Izmir, TR | [Equipment]Which mini-pci are you using?
Hello, I am looking for a
*maximum clients get connected
*maximum range that you could have.
yes, what's your mini-pci card that you used in your station(s)? |
|
IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley
| I think we are using mostly Ubiquity SR series cards and Mikrotik RH cards.
Most of the ones are Atheros based I think (AR5413).
Range is all over the place depending on antenna, power setting, EIRP in the bands we use and if it's PtMP or PTP.
Maximum clients also depend on a lot of factors like how much bandwidth you are allowing per client etc.
Generally I would say range is between 1-5 miles and number of clients are around 30-60 per card. |
|
sarpkaya
join:2008-03-04
Izmir, TR | thanks. BW is 128kbps between 1024kbps.
Also recevie sensitivity is important, I think. What would you prefer?
ps: I am planning to use amplifier so output power is not important for me. |
|
High Power
join:2007-03-25
71622
| reply to sarpkaya
These are said to be really good:
»www.hyperlinktech.com/item.aspx?id=2132
And they will also amplify your sensitivity so you have no problem hearing all other networks within 100 miles range (if you place the antenna high enough, that is).
Ps. Did you ever finish your D-Link MiMO 300Mbps backhaul? How's it working? |
|
AMD Phreak
Premium
join:2003-12-14
1 edit | [soapbox]
Putting an amp on a system is not necessarily the best way of increasing coverage area. Quite often it just makes things worse. IMO the only real good an amp is on a wifi system is to deal with excessive coaxial cable feed loss. With todays radios mostly being tower-top mounted anyway (if not integrated) it just makes no sense to amplify the output of the transmitter to levels that are higher than they already are. If you want to increase gain it is better to change your radiator type to something with a higher gain. Perhaps a higher dB omni or sector.
Not to mention its been my experience that Hyperlink amps spatter garbage all over the spectrum.
[/soapbox]
--
"No job is so important, and no service is so urgent that we cannot take the time to do it safely."
-- AT&T
--Safety One Tower Rescue Certified
--LLigetfa:"Wimax is like teenage sex. Everyone talks about doing it." |
|
sarpkaya
join:2008-03-04
Izmir, TR | reply to High Power
I am not going to use 5.8 ghz. Looking for 2.4 ghz.
I am not going to use that. I'm gonna use Mikrotik RB 600 for backhaul. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to AMD Phreak
Sarpkaya, you really should read through all your posts so far and see why so many of us are being cynical. 
1. User capacity is determined more by processor board and WISP firmware than the miniPCI card.
2. As long as firmware supports ACK timing adjustment, the range is determined more overall system margin which is impacted by AP/CPE antenna gains, RF noise and even your amplifier quality.
Since you are looking for specific card, the CM9 miniPCI card works well with "OFDM-friendly" amplifiers. It is still available on-line. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to sarpkaya
Hyperlinktech equipment is low quality for the price you pay. If you must have an amp look at www.rflinx.com. I find that an Ubiquiti card performs much better than a regular mini-pci and an amplifier. I generally do not recommend amps unless you are overcoming long coax losses, they tend to create a "one sided" conversation.
As to your two questions, the first one has nothing to do with mini-pci cards and everything to do with firmware and device you stick the mini-pci into. As to range, I've gone 40 miles PTP with the right antennas, it's all a matter of the correct antenna.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
sarpkaya
join:2008-03-04
Izmir, TR | reply to sarpkaya
So Ubiquiti is best? |
|
High Power
join:2007-03-25
71622 | reply to sarpkaya
I somehow doubt, while I could get highest signal levels with these I could hardly ever get good link quality. |
|
margioa
Premium
join:2007-04-06
Nicaragua
 ·deltathree
| reply to cmaenginsb
said by cmaenginsb  :Hyperlinktech equipment is low quality for the price you pay As far for antennas, which company would your recommend ..? |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to sarpkaya
said by sarpkaya :So Ubiquiti is best? This thread discussed a few miniPCI alternatives:
»SR/XR availability, equivalents? |
|
Semaphore
Premium
join:2003-11-18
Arnprior On.
| reply to sarpkaya
On one tower a Mikrotik 532A with a R52H (B/G Mode) running ROS 3.7 has 30 CPEs. CPE's are also MT, mostly Rb411's, with R52H cards as well. Most with Tx/Rx of 256kbps/1Mbps per, a couple at 512k/2Mbps. No NStreme. Latency from the AP is ~3 ms. When it's really busy it can occasionally spike to 200-400ms for 5 seconds or so, but that's fairly rare. And it's the 532 maxing the CPU more often than not.
I find that the R52H does better than the SR2 at switching modes too (I think), so you can have a greater mix G and B CPE's without as big an impact of latency.
For sure the CM9 does the best with CPE's that are REALLY close to the AP - where the SR cards are terrible.
Opinion seems to be ~30 to 40 CPE's on an 802 based wireless platform is the limit, and I'd agree with the RB532s. Maybe a Pentium platform could handle 60(?) but many more and the throughput has to drop to maintain low latency, because the Tx efficiency of the AP just can't keep up.
I think that solid Signal (the worst on that tower is -70), consistent power (all the CPE's hit the tower within 10 db of each other), and good link efficiency (AKA ccq) are the biggest factors in 802 capacity. One crappy CPE can drive everyone's latency through the roof. So learn to say 'no' - it's good for business
On the other Hand my Canopy AP's can take 60 Subs without breaking a sweat |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by Semaphore :One crappy CPE can drive everyone's latency through the roof. So learn to say 'no' - it's good for business This is very true. Curiously many potential WISPs wanted to mix indoor laptops with outdoor CPEs.  |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| said by lutful :Curiously many potential WISPs wanted to mix indoor laptops with outdoor CPEs. So true... seduced by the "big easy" (no install, no money tied up in CPE). It was the primary reason I left the old WISP that served my house.
--
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it. -- Stephen Vizinczey |
|
