Hello, > I thank your comments... We are WISP from just two years... we > use AP Lucent > Orinoco.. In the begining we use Karlnet software but now we are in mode > 802.11b. That change make us see the way to limit the bandwidth... We are > using channel 1 with an omni for an PMtP and channel 6 and 11 > with two PtP. It seems ok. > In moments that the delay of the pings are high, the pings to > other clients > are normal... besides the pings between wireless client are > ALWAYS good and > normal.. the only delay is SOMETIMES from the linux to the some clients... Are you 100% sure about it? If so I would bet CBQ is to blame. > > The Signal and Noise are very good (between 15 and 25 of SNR in all > clients).. it is not so, I would have problem with all clients and I could > tell you that I have never not delay with client limit to 128Kbps, and I > have sometimes delay with the one who has less bandwidth. I always try to be at around -30dB. Anyway 20 is usually good. > > I think that is not a mistake in the configuration of CBQ becouse we are > using the INI Files where I put only some values and all the rules are > charge in Memory when I execute CBQ.INIT START. > > The AP Lucent Orinoco is configure in 2Mg, I will configure at 1Mg to > minimalize the hidden node effect. Well in my lab in perfect conditions I have got problems with 802.11b devices working at 1Mbps. It resulted in packet loss. Ant it will increase delays for sure. > > I think is a problem of CBQ at that lower bandwith.. someone told > me to use > HTB or TBF.. Can they be better than CBQ..? Yes they can. I have just switched to HTB from CBQ and I am more than pleased with that. Anyway HTB has several drawbacks and its use is sometime not so intuitive. I am still not able to predict its behaviour precisely in many situations.. fortunately I have my setup in one finger;) Look for the messages with "How HTB treats priorities" in subject line. Anyway clever setup can for sure decrese ping times, increase interactivity and limit p2p software. I am currently able to limit my bandwidth usage by 50% and customers are more pleased than ever. And HTB works well with rates of 15kbits/s and with some tweaking 12kbits/s. Lower rates are possible but can produce side effects. And you have burst and cburst... HTB also shapes better and dont get stuck. Sometimes earlier versions of htb work better. > > We have besides a CISCO 3620 just configures to try and test > limit bandwith > over PPPoE.. Somebody tell that it is not the best solution... we will > try... Well, I am going to introduce PPPoE with MAC address pairs on karlnet devices but I have to test it first... It seems to be a reasonable solution, especially when billing and history and more security is required. Robert Kryczalo
