Dan's Bandwidth management comment:
We throttle every client at their location with the RG-1100. It is not
bandwidth related because even someone trying to view an IP camera at
low frame-rate and resolution would bog down the network. The polling
sees any volume as a priority over frequency of hits. Citrix requires
an extremely low bandwidth, but requires a constant conversation with
the server (frequency). However, it is given a low priority over
someone even temporarily downloading a 4 MB file, low enough to bog down
the citrix connection.
Brett:
We build our standard FlashROM units in 19" rack mountable server cases.
They are loaded with fans as the processors (Duron 1.3GHz) would burn up
within seconds without a fan. This is going to be the case with
anything over 800MHz and probably some lower than that. RAM is 64Mb,
mainly b/c that's the most available. I think it is way overkill, but
who wants to look for hours for an 8 or 16 Mb DIMM to save like $5. We
mount our equipment at the bottom of all our towers, so if you're used
to having a water-tight box with an AP1000 up top, this is different.
We are highly against placing APs at the top of towers as rain prevents
us from getting up should something need to be replaced. This may sound
remedial to some, but I have heard of people doing it. FlashROM units
serve their purposes very well. They are convenient to mount as racks
are easily available. They have plenty of room to work if you need to
open one up and add another channel, or swap out a part. They have
plenty of power to support 100mW and 200mW cards (we have actually
tested this). They have several case fans and filters to keep the unit
cool and reliable. You can even check the temperature of the unit
remotely. They are auto-on, so even if your backup batteries die the
unit will come alive as soon as power is available. This is not a
'compact' or 'lowest price' solution. These are excellent units. We
even had one get hit by lightening a while back, and the only thing to
break was the one PCI slot that the antenna was connected to. The rest
of the unit's slots kept working. That is obviously not in the plan,
but it was nice to have the unit not blow up. Fortunately that only
happened one time, and I would expect to be that lucky again. You can
get specs from Karlnet as to what MoBo/CPU combos "SHOULD" work, but we
stick to what we have proved to work. I don't view this as a "sales"
forum, so if anyone is interested in purchasing a unit, please contact
me directly. Thanks for listening. I hope I helped.
Steve Deaton
IT Director
Texas Broadband, Inc.
(888)868.3835 ext 85 (office)
979.289.0148 (office)
979.289.5117 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com
[mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com] On Behalf Of Brett Hays
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:50 AM
To: Karlnet Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
Steve,
I know I asked which motherboards you are using, but I am really
curious
to know more about the setups you are using. For instance, what cpu do
you
use (can you get away with a heatsink only to eleminate all moving
parts)
What do you do as far as RAM, have you found nice small form factor
cases to
use, etc. etc. I think this may be the way we should consider building
out
our new network.
Brett Hays
Hometown Online
www.htonline.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Deaton" <steve@texasbb.com>
To: "'Karlnet Mailing List'" <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
> We have had similar problems with polling. We have many commercial
> accounts that run citrix, or streaming audio/video, etc... With
polling
> enabled, whoever needs the largest bandwidth seemed to get it
> (frequently a kazaa user), and everyone else's ping times elevated to
> around 700ms. Ping times like that kill connections that must
maintain
> a connection across the internet. I haven't been able to get anyone
> else to verify these instances, but I am not sure of anyone else's
load
> and client base. Our client base is primarily commercial and the only
> way we were able to get things working well was to build FlashROM
units.
> We build 1.3GHz TurboCell FlashROM units configured with routing and
> DHCP and polling DISABLED. Currently we have 18 of these units active
> and serve over 200 clients. So far we have up to 50 clients on any
> single unit, with up to 10 commercial clients on the same unit. By
> commercial I mean over 20 computers using the internet for a mission
> critical connection other than email. Most are doing terminal
services,
> VPN tunneling, or citrix. These numbers are not the limit, just what
we
> have reached. The FlashROM unit with polling DISABLED has been the
> answer to all our prayers. I really feel that using an AP-1000 is a
> waste of time, especially for the price difference. We were up and
> running with AP-1000's for several months before changing to the
> FlashROM units, and we experienced all the problems you describe with
> the AP-1000. I am amazed at how many people choose to use something
> with a 100MHz (I think) CPU, when you can have a 1.3GHz unit capable
of
> running three channels. If anyone is nervous or unsure about building
a
> unit we can help. Feel free to contact me directly with questions.
As
> far as polling goes, I have NEVER seen any acceptable use for polling.
> It is something that might have been cool in the beginning, or if you
> have a bunch of clients ONLY checking email. If you want to compete
on
> a commercial level, I just cannot see using polling. I am open to the
> idea that we may be wrong, and I welcome input. I speak only from
> experience, so my info is gathered from our network, not hypothetical
> situations. If anyone else has any experience with FlashROM units
> please let me know what has/hasn't worked for you. Thanks.
>
> Steve Deaton
> IT Director
> Texas Broadband, Inc.
> (888)868.3835 ext 85 (office)
> 979.289.0148 (office)
> 979.289.5117 (fax)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com
> [mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com] On Behalf Of Nenad Orlic
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:38 AM
> To: Brett Hays; Karlnet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Karlnet] Is this interference?
>
> > If not, it is kind of a headscratcher. Any way - just for grins -
> that
> > you> can go up to the base station and turn OFF polling and see what
> happens?
> > I've seen numerous Karlnet networks take off and start flying when
> polling
> was turned off.
> > Go figure.
>
> I've talked few times with karlnet tech support about this. They do
not
> have
> the idea why this is happening or they are just playing dumb (or
both).
> Pooling is performing much better in versions 3.xx then in versions
> 4.xx.
> Their response to that was 'well switch the stations back to 3.xx'
(but
> they
> just didn't told me how to do they think to do that on new boards).
>
> But turning of pooling will not solve your problems. At least not for
a
> long
> time. When you do that, station will work much better with clients but
> only
> on light load. As soon as usage goes over 500kbit you'll see your
> station
> going down....
>
> Still waiting for any solution from karlnet about this...
> There is also interesting problem with new karlnet boards, working
with
> kalrnet to see what exactly the problem is. It seems that traffic from
> wireless to Ethernet port is not being transferred well resulting in
> poor
> outgoing traffic performance. Problem with MTU or
> 'SuperPacketAggregation'?
> If later, both Turbocell main features are flawed??!
>
> greetings, Nenad
> www.madnet.co.yu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Karlnet mailing list
> Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Karlnet mailing list
> Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
> http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
>
_______________________________________________
Karlnet mailing list
Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet
|