Karlnet
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Karlnet] KN50 Problem with 8.x firmware

To: "'Karlnet Mailing List'" <karlnet@wispnotes.com>
Subject: RE: [Karlnet] KN50 Problem with 8.x firmware
From: "Dan Metcalf" <dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com>
Reply-to: Karlnet Mailing List <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:16:25 -0500
List-post: <mailto:karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Were can I download the "firmware & flash" for the Orinoco radios?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com
[mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com]
> On Behalf Of Kevin Knuth
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:04 PM
> To: 'Karlnet Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: [Karlnet] KN50 Problem with 8.x firmware
> 
> Yes I do!
> 
> I will forward this to engineering RIGHT AWAY!
> 
> Kevin
> 
> **************************************
> Kevin R. Knuth
> Business Development Manager
> North America
> 260-424-9690 Regional Office
> 614-822-5275 Corporate Office
> kknuth@karlnet.com
> www.karlnet.com
> **************************************
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com
> [mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hrbek
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: Karlnet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Karlnet] KN50 Problem with 8.x firmware
> 
> 
> I've seen the same exact think on my first 3 KN-50 installs.   I
> replaced
> the Dell cards all three times with older silvers and the links went
> from marginally working to working perfectly.
> 
> Karlnet....you got your ears on?
> 
> 
> -bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Timothy J. Steele" <tsteele@e-isco.com>
> To: <karlnet@wispnotes.com>
> Cc: <support@karlnet.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 2:10 PM
> Subject: [Karlnet] KN50 Problem with 8.x firmware
> 
> 
> > Last month there was a post to a thread from Mark McKibbin (see
> >
http://lists.wispnotes.com/pipermail/karlnet/2003-October/003153.html
> >
<http://lists.wispnotes.com/pipermail/karlnet/2003-October/003146.html
> > >
> > ) in regards to the KN50 "Blackbird" units.  His questions were in
> > regards to the poor link quality of the Orinoco Gold cards and other
> > cards that have been included with the units.  We have been
> experiencing
> > similar problems (our units were purchased with Dell TrueMobile
Radios
> > (Agere chipset Firmware rev. 8.10.1)).  I have been running tests on
a
> > number of different cards with the KN50.  The following are the
> results:
> >
> > NOTE:  These tests were conducted on live point-to-multipoint
> > connections.  We used all the same hardware for our testing; the
only
> > change was the radio card for each test.  The KN50 board was
> > classified as a SOHO CPE with product v1.00-00-073017.  Our average
> > connection speed with a 1024k key is around 700-900k.  The Base
units
> > we used for testing are using software versions 4.43 and 4.44.  They
> > have a varied number of subscribers, from 4 (a new site) up to 50+
> > (our oldest site). On all these tests, the SNR was between 12dB and
> > 18dB upstream to Base and 21dB to 30dB downstream from Base.
> >
> > Dell Radio:
> > Chipset:  Agere
> > Firmware ver.: 8.10.1
> > PING test (a standard IP tools PING test from a PC through the Base
to
> 
> > the CPE (100 packets)):  73% of the packets lost Throughput test (5
> > bandwidth tests from 2wire.com and dslreports.com): 278, 112, 245,
> > 237, 298 (speed measured in kilobits)
> > NOTE:  The packets lost in the PING test are RARELY noted on the
> > client side (i.e. surfing the Internet, Web Page comes up
> > unavailable).  They just notice a significant slowdown.
> >
> > Orinoco Gold:
> > Chipset:  Agere
> > FW ver:  8.72.1
> > PING test:  64% lost
> > Throughput:  451, 368, 519, 259, 311
> >
> > Orinoco Silver:
> > Chipset:  Agere
> > FW ver:  6.6.1
> > PING test:  0% lost
> > Throughput:  676, 574, 481, 625, 616
> >
> > Avaya Radio:
> > Chipset:  Agere
> > FW ver:  6.8.1
> > PING test:  0% lost
> > Throughput:  550, 447, 380, 571, 561
> >
> > Wave Wireless Radio:
> > Chipset:  Agere
> > FW ver:  6.8.1
> > PING test:  1% lost
> > Throughput:  515, 660, 674, 553, 622
> >
> > Demarctech Prism Radio:
> > Chipset:  Intersil (800C)
> > FW ver:  1.3.6
> > PING test:  3%
> > Throughput 591, 745, 652, 733, 725
> >
> > At the location where we were doing the final throughput tests, an
> > NDIS install in a local server has the following results: PING test:
> > 1% lost
> > Throughput:  725, 989, 867, 967, 802
> >
> > I realize that the PING test is hardly conclusive, but it definitely
> > coincides with the lower bandwidth connections.  Does anyone else
have
> 
> > similar findings?  One other point of note is that the PING test on
a
> > unit connected to a highly utilized Base has significantly more
> > dropped packets on the Dell and Orinoco Gold cards (i.e.  The cards
> > are noted with a 73% and 64% loss on a Base with 40+ subscribers,
> > these numbers drop to 35% and 23% on a Base with 20 or less
clients).
> 
> > This would indicate Base unit over saturation, but we can connect a
> > standard NDIS
> > (radio) client or a KN100 board and the PING tests and throughput
> tests
> > are excellent (0% loss, avg. 880k throughput).
> >
> > It appears that cards running older versions of firmware (6.x.x) do
> > not have the problems that newer firmware (8.x.x) have; at least in
> > regards to the KN50.  I have upgraded the Orinoco Silver card to
> > v8.7.5 firmware and it exhibits the same problems.  I downgraded the
> > firmware and the problem goes away.  Our only option, at this point,
> > is to downgrade the firmware on the newer cards or try to find older
> > silver cards with the external antenna attachment (seeing as how the
> > new silvers do not have them anymore).
> >
> > I tested the Orinoco Gold and the Dell Radio in a KN100 board with
the
> 
> > following results:
> >
> > OG:
> > PING test: 0% lost
> > Throughput:  714, 784, 987, 966, 908
> >
> > Dell:
> > PING Test:  1% lost
> > Throughput:  837, 664, 843, 767, 813
> >
> > This looks like a problem with the KN50's and newer Agere firmware.
> > Anytime you install 8.x firmware on any radio in the KN50,
performance
> 
> > is significantly reduced and there is a high amount of IP packet
> > failure.  Our research team would like to know if anyone else
concurs
> > with these findings and is there a solution in the works.  If not,
is
> > there anymore testing you would like from our end to get this issue
> > resolved?
> >
> >
> > Tim Steele & Marcus Rudd
> > Wireless Networking Engineers
> > e-ISCO Internet
> > www.e-isco.com <http://www.e-isco.com/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> --
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


_______________________________________________
Karlnet mailing list
Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>