Steve,
Can you tell me exactly what hardware you use for your flashrom units in
terms of MB, etc? It is definitely somthing we would like to explore.
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
>
|