I know that this has been discussed a lot but just wanted to revisit this…
I have a sector with 27 SM connected to it and I am still concerned with the ping between the SMs and sector. My upstream provider gave me an American server , Im in Canada, to test to and my furthest hop sector gets their in 70ms… but when I test the same server from a SM on that sector and it is 98-100 ping. I have been comparing notes with another wisp who uses strictly ubiquiti equipment, AC devices, and has sectors with the same amount of customers and traffic on a sector… when I tested the sm ping to the american server I only have about 20mbps of traffic through this sector. Any insight would be appreciated or if anyone else is seeing this on the epmp 3000. I only have force 300 25 and 19 models that make up my 27 clients.
Look at your frame usage and the number of retransmissions in both directions. This will affect your ping times as well as bandwidth load in the sector. If you are giving the users in a sector 100mbps connections then you are over provisioned at 8 connections.
I do not even consider complaints of high ping time for off network connections. I do not control other networks so will not entertain those complaints. Setup an Iperf node at your tower, go to the SM and plug directly in. Use Jperf to display the link statistics and ping times and delay jitter.
I agree, I tell my clients that all I can control is the ping times to the gateway of the upstream provider.
I do not offer 100mbps packages, at time of testing there was 15mbps going through the sector, cant remember exact of the frame usage but it was low. retransmission on sector at the time was 1% and the sm that I did testing from was at 1% retransmission. Now am I correct in that if I have a couple SM with higher retransmission they will cause everyone on the sector to experiencing high ping?
I just logged onto the sector and in the performance page in the SM list I have a SM with 85% retransmission but it absolutely has no real reason for it to be at 85%!! This client has great los and no reason for that to be happening…
Retransmissions will cause high ping on a sector. Most likely is that one with 85% has some interference and this could be as sime as their wifi router has a 5ghz radio set to auto/auto/auto. Could also be an SM from a different sector thats connected to a side lobe of the current sector and is not quite happy. Lots of possibilities.
You can also get high retransmissions if your sector SM power is too high, should be -65ish so close and los links dont have issues.
Gps sync and having the APs far enough apart ( if your tower guy can touch the backs of two oposing antennas then they are too close) and setting your front/back sectors and max distance correctly. If its slightly different then you can have a mess thats hard to track down and even harder to prove that its right. And yes only one sector could be affected and vice versa one sector could cause havoc with many towers.
Thank you for your insight… yes many variables but it has been an uphill battle with alot of the epmp firmware always adding that extra variable and sometimes being the issue. I rebooted the SM that showed 85% retransmission on the sector side and its now 7%?? Have not added to many clients to this sector in many weeks and I had ping times to 8.8.8.8 around 95-100 ping and now up to 170 ping… I will try rolling firmware back and see what happens. Thanks again.
Ping times have variables that you can control such as frame ratio, sm distances, long or short guard times, individual signal strength and snr. Compairing mine to yours would never give you even a hint of appropriate times unless you copy my network and the devices within.
I see better latency with the 3000L than I do with the 3000 - go figure. 3000L with 4.6.0.1 latency sub 10ms for many sm. All 3000’s latency is in the 20’s no matter what. Some of my 3000’s are in basically no noise environs too, but latency always high since day one. Th option for 2.5ms tdd windows showed up for a couple of releases then disappeared again - this would drop latency to the teens for sure but obviously broke the thing.