anybody can tell how to resolve the ping issues? my link over 7.7KM, with clear LOS. Attached with my spectrum management and ping time.
Master radio ping is okay, when ping to Slave radio happened many RTO, fine tune a lot of freq but no luck. 
Slave
The problem due to interferrence?
Status page might be helpful as well. In my limited experience that is a lot of background noise.
looks to me like with all that background noise it is probably constantly changing modulation schemes causing temporary loss of packets.
i would upgrade firmware to 9X that was a bug in 8X
also make sure you have sync
and also make sure your settings are in sync with your other BH’s
if you have any others
nucoles wrote: looks to me like with all that background noise it is probably constantly changing modulation schemes causing temporary loss of packets.
I'd say definitely. Look at the status page and keep hitting F5 and see if it is changing modulation. It will also say Limited due to wireless conditions or because of bit errors. Thats quite a bit of noise.
900mhzdude wrote: i would upgrade firmware to 9X that was a bug in 8X
also make sure you have sync
and also make sure your settings are in sync with your other BH's
if you have any others
these are PTP600 Series backhauls not canopy backhauls, two entirely different animals.
nucoles wrote: looks to me like with all that background noise it is probably constantly changing modulation schemes causing temporary loss of packets.
ride1hr wrote: [quote="nucoles":3lu60ycc]looks to me like with all that background noise it is probably constantly changing modulation schemes causing temporary loss of packets.
I'd say definitely. Look at the status page and keep hitting F5 and see if it is changing modulation. It will also say Limited due to wireless conditions or because of bit errors. Thats quite a bit of noise.[/quote:3lu60ycc]
Thanks for reply. Fellow friends, how do you find there is background noise? Today I've fine tune a bit frequency, now the link looks quite stable, no limited no bit errors so far so good.
But how to define interference or noise from the Spectrum Management page?
I appreciate your kindness.
nucoles wrote: [quote="900mhzdude":3nu5kozv]i would upgrade firmware to 9X that was a bug in 8X
also make sure you have sync
and also make sure your settings are in sync with your other BH's
if you have any others
these are PTP600 Series backhauls not canopy backhauls, two entirely different animals.[/quote:3nu5kozv]
"Hands up", this is PTP300 series backhaul.
reeyon wrote: [quote="nucoles":1g4bs54f][quote="900mhzdude":1g4bs54f]i would upgrade firmware to 9X that was a bug in 8X
also make sure you have sync
and also make sure your settings are in sync with your other BH's
if you have any others
these are PTP600 Series backhauls not canopy backhauls, two entirely different animals.[/quote:1g4bs54f]
"Hands up", this is PTP300 series backhaul.[/quote:1g4bs54f]
ptp300,400,500,600 all ofdm unlike canopy bh's
Latest software release for the PTP300 is v03-02. All of the PTP300’s we have seen have shipped with v02-xx, which was buggy. Upgrade both ends of the link, also check to make sure that your link isn’t frequently changing modulation schemes… if so, you may have to lower the max receive modulation mode if you are using adaptive modulation on this link.
reeyon
This may help as a comparison. Spectrum page from a 5.4Ghz link that I would consider to be fairly noise free.
The black bars are locked out in my region due to it being a frequency used for radar in Australia.
http://www.geocities.com/privatteer/spectrum2.jpg
5.8Ghz wasn’t used as there is about 8 different links I know of running in site of that building at that frequency.
Hi
I have quite a bit of experience with these things with about 20 links about the place. LOS / NLOS / High interference you name it.
One thing I have noticed with the PTP 300 / 500 compared to the PTP 400 is that ping times are down so packets per second are up. This also has the effect of making it slightly less stable so it drops a packet where the PTP 400 may not have in harsher environments.
The best thing to do here is lower the maximum modulation mode at both ends until the link stops dropping packets. This will of course be at the detriment of speed but in a noisy band like this I would rather go for no packet drop then the maximum data rate. You could try lowering the channel bandwidth to 10 or 5 MHZ but I’m unsure of the effect of this it most likely lowers the link speed.
If you can post your status page that would be good also as there is lots of useful information there worth looking at.
If your final throughput is not satisfactory guess what you have the best product on the market for a noisy airspace. You may need to consider a PTP300 / 500 in 5.4 or even licensed.
Connectorised with narrower beam higher gain antennas also can help. The internal antenna is around 7 degrees were as you can get 28dbi dual pol dishes around 2 degree which will see less noise.
Do these units no longer give you the option to optimize the link for latency vs throughput?
You can choose IP Traffic (Better Throughput) or TDM Traffic (Better Latency) from the Link Mode Optimization Attribute from the Wireless Configuration screen of the Installation Wizard.
That’s what I thought.
Personally, I try not to ping the other end of the radio and ping a device behind the other end. I’m somewhat skeptical of the ping results otherwise. I figure the radio is concerned (or at least should be) with passing legitimate traffic first before ICMP replies. That seems to be how ping results on Canopy work, anyway.
I think you are correct… there is a lower priority on ICMP and Web Traffic on the management interface.
Privatteer wrote: reeyon
This may help as a comparison. Spectrum page from a 5.4Ghz link that I would consider to be fairly noise free.
The black bars are locked out in my region due to it being a frequency used for radar in Australia.
http://www.geocities.com/privatteer/spectrum2.jpg
5.8Ghz wasn't used as there is about 8 different links I know of running in site of that building at that frequency.
From the screenshot given, there was really clean of background noise.
jettech wrote: Hi
I have quite a bit of experience with these things with about 20 links about the place. LOS / NLOS / High interference you name it.
One thing I have noticed with the PTP 300 / 500 compared to the PTP 400 is that ping times are down so packets per second are up. This also has the effect of making it slightly less stable so it drops a packet where the PTP 400 may not have in harsher environments.
The best thing to do here is lower the maximum modulation mode at both ends until the link stops dropping packets. This will of course be at the detriment of speed but in a noisy band like this I would rather go for no packet drop then the maximum data rate. You could try lowering the channel bandwidth to 10 or 5 MHZ but I’m unsure of the effect of this it most likely lowers the link speed.
If you can post your status page that would be good also as there is lots of useful information there worth looking at.
If your final throughput is not satisfactory guess what you have the best product on the market for a noisy airspace. You may need to consider a PTP300 / 500 in 5.4 or even licensed.
Connectorised with narrower beam higher gain antennas also can help. The internal antenna is around 7 degrees were as you can get 28dbi dual pol dishes around 2 degree which will see less noise.
Thanks for the advise, its very useful for me.
The better choice for me now is to change to others frequencies, or use alternative products to overcome this.
Today's captured:
As you can see from spectrum page, too much interference or noise over there, bored :(
Stuck in a hotel room so did some rough calcs.
Free space loss looks about right for that distance. I’m guessing you have nice line of sight with no obstructions. However your “looking” at a huge area with the integrated unit.
With that noise level and distance even at the power your transmitting at I would only expect the very lowest data rates to work. You may find some of the dropped packets are as it changes modulation.
A narrow beam high performance antenna may help by cutting down on the interference your seeing but I personally would be trying to get a site survey done to see if other frequencies you could use are free first.
Plentong = Malaysia? 5.4Ghz may be clearer but I would be buying conectorized version and using a dish for that distance.
Privatteer wrote: Stuck in a hotel room so did some rough calcs.
Free space loss looks about right for that distance. I'm guessing you have nice line of sight with no obstructions. However your "looking" at a huge area with the integrated unit.
With that noise level and distance even at the power your transmitting at I would only expect the very lowest data rates to work. You may find some of the dropped packets are as it changes modulation.
A narrow beam high performance antenna may help by cutting down on the interference your seeing but I personally would be trying to get a site survey done to see if other frequencies you could use are free first.
Plentong = Malaysia? 5.4Ghz may be clearer but I would be buying conectorized version and using a dish for that distance.
hmm .. thanks for comment, i think i would try to tell my boss and let him to decide whether change freq or connectorized antenna.
Yes Plentong = Malaysia. Unfortunately our company no 5.4 spectrum license.
this is normal due to background noise as indicated by your spectrum status. we have the same issue pertaining to 5.8GHz in our country.
the best thing you can do is set you freq to a fix channel. please refer to your spectrum and choose adjacent channels with less or lowest interference level.
that should fix your issue w/o using a sync.