# BH20 latency

**URL:** https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152
**Category:** PMP
**Created:** [September 27, 2006, 9:04am UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152 "2006-09-27T09:04:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![giannici](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@giannici](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/giannici)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2006, 9:04am UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/1 "2006-09-27T09:04:14Z")

</div>

We are trying a BH20 link and found that the latency is 20ms instead of 5-7ms expected.  
  
Sotware release is 7.3.6 and scheduling is Hardware.  
  
We tried both with 2X enabled and disabled: same result.  
  
Shouldn’t hardware scheduling lower the latencty in BHs too???  
  
Thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![vj1](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/ecae2f/32.png) [@vj1](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/vj1)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2006, 12:57pm UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/2 "2006-09-27T12:57:16Z")

</div>

I don’t think it does on BH… you latency tests are being done how ?  
  
we get about 10-20 depending on how loaded the BH is… in extreme cases it can be upto 500-600ms

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![captainfreenet](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/ce7236/32.png) [@captainfreenet](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/captainfreenet)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2006, 1:41pm UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/3 "2006-09-27T13:41:28Z")

</div>

try setting it to software, I have 4 sets of 5.2Ghz BH20s with the same problem, the fix was to switch them back to software. They are all running 7.3.6.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![clueless](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/35a633/32.png) [@clueless](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/clueless)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2006, 2:40pm UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/4 "2006-09-27T14:40:07Z")

</div>

latency goes up in Hardware mode from 3ms to 18 to 20ms. But in hardware mode it will auto change between 10 and 20 meg as needed

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![matrixsup](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@matrixsup](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/matrixsup)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/5 "2006-09-27T14:44:10Z")

</div>

Put the Firmware to 7.2.x & ths will result in latency of 5-7 ms.  
  
We had applied 7.3.x on hardware scheduling on BH-10 & found that latency was 20 ms.  
  
Software sheduling clocks better latency.  
  
I too am not able to understand why latency goes higher in h/w scheduling.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![clueless](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/35a633/32.png) [@clueless](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/clueless)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/6 "2006-09-27T15:07:20Z")

</div>

The only reason we went to the 7.3.6 is for the auto switching, there is about an hour a day it will fall back on the thru put

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![moinavery](https://d10gw3vjmzyp8.cloudfront.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@moinavery](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/u/moinavery)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t/bh20-latency/29152/7 "2006-09-29T03:48:01Z")

</div>

If you have one BH on that tower use Soft.S.lower latency  
Motorola says you should use HS if you have several BH on one tower.  
  
Juan Marriott