"you MUST set the (max range) parameter on all other APs in teh clsuter *exactly* the same"...
Here's an interesting theoritical followup question... that hopefully won't be viewed as (further) thread stealing:
Lets say that there are two tower clusters of the same Canopy APs (all 900s, or all 2.4s, etc) that are only a few miles apart. Both tower clusters are set to a different max range. Also, SMs installed inbetween the two towers pickup APs from each tower in their "AP Eval Data."
And now the big finish: will the two AP clusters interfere with eachother?
Since modifying the max range setting changes the timing of the send/receive strokes, it seems like the answer is yes. Any thoughts?
You don’t “HAVE” to exactly have the same max-range, but you will have problems within your own AP cluster (intra-system interference)
As to the new question… Short Answer: Yes - there is interference in this scenario Modified short Answer: if both groups use CMM and have same up/down ratio, then ‘some’ improvement in inter-system interference Medium Answer: The SMs that exist between the towers may be able to “see” both APs (inter-system interference) - so that’s where the AP eval data, Spectrum Analyzer, multiple non-overlapping channels (except tougher with 900 MHz channels being few) help out…so knowing where your competitors’ APs are will help you decide how to position your SMs
This is now where you look-up pictures of SMs nested inside aluminum bread pans (grin)…
in the land of the trees that i am serving if i set the max range to anything but max ie for 900 gear 120 miles i do not get registrations on the sm’s that have lots dense trees in the way up to as close as 2 miles.
it seems that the becon broadcast needs the time for all of the multipath for everything to work.
i know this effects throughput for all but i would sooner sacrafice some speed to give more customers service.
Connected to the CMM and got 5500 down and 1600 up. I still think the CMM has problems so it’s getting replaced next weekend with a CMM micro. I’ll let you know the results.
Jerry a useful little tool to find bottlenecks I use is a bandwidth test program that will max out the link and give you a real world measurement of the link. I use speakeasy often but it takes into account everything from you to them. This little program can run in server mode and client mode. Place a laptop at one end of a link with the tester in server mode. Place a second at the other end in client mode and run the test. Warning though this will max out the connection so all other traffic on the link wont pass. The program is FREE go to www mikrotik.com on the downloads page and download the bandwidth tester. Hope it helps.
Any particular reason you have the BH link set to 50% up and down. You appear to have the AP-SM links set to 75% down. Seems there were topics on this concerning AP to SM ratios (drop in aggregate throughput), but I don’t see a drastic drop having my BH links set to 75% down. Since it is point to point, the radios adjust the number of data frames and the aggregate stays pretty much the same since there is no contention for the control frames as you have in AP-SM links.
Are there other active users on the AP? If so, you are sharing the total AP-SM bandwith them so you would see lower numbers using an internet based speed test than the link test between AP and SM.
Brings to mind a suggestion for Motorola for a future firmware upgrade - a link test between any two radios within your network. My apologies if it has already been suggested.
George Barti RPM Wireless Internet, LLC Palmdale, CA
All this RF is still FM to me…(ask if you don’t know)
We just set them at 50% and left it. It was working pretty well, so we left it alone. I think I might try your suggestion of shifting to 75% and see what changes.
The thing that was most glaring was the lower than expected throughput, but it seems that we are getting what we should.
