You are here

PBE-M5-400 short/long guard interval

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
i8fuc
PBE-M5-400 short/long guard interval
Hi all,
we are experiencing a very strange behavure with a link of nearly 30 Km consisting of a pair of PBE-M5-400 devices.

The link is affected  by a  nearly 20 dbm fading ( from -55dbm till .75dbm) with a very very slow rate haft an hour to several  minutes....
rtt and packet loss are acceptable but tx speed  is floating from few mbps to 30 mbps

channel width is 5Mhz at present; by extending channel width to 10 Mhz we get same behavure but with much higher rtt values and packet loss

We noted from station rc_stats that the device is trying to use bot SGI and LGI modes  flipping ...

by comparing with other nodes using rocket radio we never seen this flipping...

my question is:  there is any method to force LGI in order to try to make more stable the link ?

any hint or suggestion is welcome

Attached a dump of the rc_stats 

Mike





              best   ____________rate__________    ________statistics________    ________last_______    ______sum-of________
mode guard #  rate  [name   idx airtime  max_tp]  [avg(tp) avg(prob) sd(prob)]  [prob.|retry|suc|att]  [#success | #attempts]
HT20  LGI  1         MCS0     0    1477     5.6       5.6     100.0      0.0     100.0   3     0 0             1   1
HT20  LGI  1         MCS1     1     739    10.5      10.5     100.0      0.0     100.0   0     0 0             1   1
HT20  LGI  1         MCS2     2     493    14.9      14.9     100.0      0.0     100.0   0     0 0             1   1
HT20  LGI  1         MCS3     3     369    18.7      18.7      98.0      1.8     100.0   5     0 0            36   46
HT20  LGI  1         MCS4     4     246    25.3      25.3      96.1      1.4     100.0   5     0 0          1078   1332
HT20  LGI  1     DP  MCS5     5     185    30.6      30.6      92.3      1.8     100.0   5     0 0          2168   3129
HT20  LGI  1         MCS6     6     164    32.9      23.0      62.9      2.0     100.0   5     0 0          1865   3154
HT20  LGI  1         MCS7     7     148    35.0      23.8      61.0      1.4     100.0   5     0 0          1337   3161
HT20  LGI  2         MCS8    10     739    10.5      10.5     100.0      0.0     100.0   4     0 0             1   1
HT20  LGI  2         MCS9    11     369    18.7      18.7      96.0      1.3     100.0   5     0 0            82   100
HT20  LGI  2         MCS10   12     246    25.3      25.3      95.6      1.1     100.0   5     0 0          1962   2243
HT20  LGI  2    C    MCS11   13     185    30.6      30.6      99.3      1.1     100.0   5     0 0          9218   10522
HT20  LGI  2   B     MCS12   14     123    38.9      37.0      85.8      1.6      50.0   6     0 0         37752   44669
HT20  LGI  2         MCS13   15      93    44.8      22.4      45.2      1.2     100.0   6     0 0         23902   29957
HT20  LGI  2         MCS14   16      82    47.3       0.0       2.2      1.9       0.0   6     0 0         33005   40303
HT20  LGI  2         MCS15   17      74    49.4      11.5      21.2      1.5       0.0   5     0 0         56950   64582
HT20  SGI  1         MCS0    30    1329     6.2       6.2     100.0      0.0     100.0   3     0 0             1   1
HT20  SGI  1         MCS1    31     665    11.5      11.5     100.0      0.0     100.0   0     0 0             1   1
HT20  SGI  1         MCS2    32     443    16.1      16.1      95.1      1.2     100.0   0     0 0            30   38
HT20  SGI  1         MCS3    33     332    20.2      20.2      99.4      1.0     100.0   5     0 0           380   402
HT20  SGI  1         MCS4    34     222    27.1      27.1      95.8      1.4     100.0   5     0 0          3478   4097
HT20  SGI  1         MCS5    35     166    32.8      22.8      63.1      1.2       0.0   5     0 0          2963   4383
HT20  SGI  1         MCS6    36     148    35.0      17.5      44.9      1.6     100.0   5     0 0          3347   5393
HT20  SGI  1         MCS7    37     133    37.2      22.5      54.4      1.5       0.0   6     0 0          2052   3799
HT20  SGI  2         MCS8    40     665    11.5      11.5     100.0      0.0     100.0   4     0 0             2   2
HT20  SGI  2         MCS9    41     332    20.2      20.2      96.1      1.3     100.0   5     0 0           108   129
HT20  SGI  2         MCS10   42     222    27.1      27.1      98.0      1.7     100.0   5     0 0          3300   3764
HT20  SGI  2         MCS11   43     166    32.8      22.2      61.1      0.9     100.0   5     0 0         22121   24846
HT20  SGI  2  A      MCS12   44     111    41.0      41.0      97.3      1.8     100.0   6     2 2         88856   101406
HT20  SGI  2         MCS13   45      83    46.9      29.1      55.7      1.8       0.0   6     0 0         48776   57984
HT20  SGI  2         MCS14   46      74    49.2      20.2      36.9      1.8       0.0   5     0 0         93963   106066
HT20  SGI  2         MCS15   47      67    51.4      10.6      18.7      0.7       0.0   6     0 0        149250   163569

Total packet count::    ideal 566623      lookaround 21531
Average # of aggregated frames per A-MPDU: 1.1

 
AE6XE
AE6XE's picture
Mike, I've not seen any
Mike, I've not seen any settings to lock this. If there were, then this would lower the throughput of the link, or cause it to not function when/if the locked rate wouldn't work. It's normal operating mode for packets to be sent at different rates adjusting dynamically to the environment. Every neighbor could have a different rate in use all at the same time. This rate table exists for every neighbor. If the rate selection changes a lot, then probably an interfering signal. An SNR that jumps around can also occur with interference. Could add rf shielding ISO if not already? Joe AE6XE
i8fuc
Hi Joe, thanks for feedback..
Hi Joe, thanks for feedback...
I do agree with your considerations...  my question was just limited to the guard interval due to the fact that on other radios in the mesh I always see just the LGI entries,not any SGI entry...

Regarding interferencies  by doing a wifi scan we do not see any other station at least with the same channel width..
I have not tried to use any ISO shield  till now because not available...   for sure there could be significant multipath due to near obstacles because both link end are in the city center...

The main point anyway is that the link goes across the napoli goulf, so most of the link is over the sea surface with surely significant temperature/humidity issues....

BTW as fas as you know can you confirm that the minstrel algorithm truies to check bot the LGI and SGI  modalities for the various MCS ?

thanks again..

Mike




 
KG6JEI
"BTW as fas as you know can

"BTW as fas as you know can you confirm that the minstrel algorithm truies to check bot the LGI and SGI  modalities for the various MCS ?"

To my knowledge yes.  Minstrel is very well documented here https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/mac80211/ratecontrol/minstrel  however the gist of it is that minstrel tries to find the fastest throughput data rate and uses it for the majority of packets,  if a packet is lost over the air (this is before it would show up at the IPv4 level as lost) it is retransmitted at the next fastest data rate, if that fails it moves to data rate with highest probability of connecting and if that fails it finally falls back to the base rate.  At the same time minstrel is also selecting random packets (10% of directed packets) to send out at random data rates to sample and determine how the remaining data rates are behaving.

Looking at the table you posted I would expect it to flip from SGI to LGI anytime a normal packet (a packet that is not intentionally being used to rate check the network) gets lost over the air which will happen frequently in a wireless system like AREDN but your primary appears to be SGI with LGI being the fallback. This chart at the time it was taken reads like  MCS12 is the perfect encoding rate but since packets do get lost in all wireless networks staying at MCS12 but having a longer guard on the LGI is the best he system can do to maintain speed but adhere to the minstrel protocol that it try the 'next fastest' speed for a retry

Also for the LGI/SGI showing up: This will also depend what version of the firmware is running on each side of the link.  IIRC the current stable release (3.16.1.x) doesn't support SGI so if your node is speaking to is 3.16.1.x then only LGI entires will show up in the list because the other neighbor doesn't support SGI it won't be a possible rate to choose from.  The table is different per neighbor, if you happened to bring an older BBHN Linksys device (if this were 2.4GHz)  you would actually not even see the MCS* Options at all, likewise if you bring an older BBHN Ubiquiti device in range the same thing happens where the firmware previosuly didn't have dual chains enabled so you wouldn't see MCS8-15 at all as the table only lists supported data rates with that neighbor.
 

i8fuc
Hi, thanks for resuming  in a
Hi, thanks for resuming  in a very detailed and concise way the minstrel algorithm...  infact your conclusions was also mine...

I also got to the conclusion that actually the first choise after the minstrel thinking is to use an SGI mode, but this most of the times fails for some reason so it flips back to the safer LGI... so my hint is that the main issue is multipath that create intersimbol interference that the short guard time is not able to sustain, while the long guard time does....

All the nodes at at present are using the latest 3.17.0.1.RC1 sw release....


So my question was arising if with this latest SW release there is any way to disallow  minstrel to select SGI and keep using ONLY the LGI....

any info on this ?

Thanks for your attention

Mike
AE6XE
AE6XE's picture
I found the documentation to
I found the documentation to be out-dated. For example, I think it was the calculation of throughput that was different in the code last I was looking at it. There may be more differences a d/or improvements.
AE6XE
AE6XE's picture
I found the documentation to
I found the documentation to be out-dated. For example, I think it was the calculation of throughput that was different in the code last I was looking at it. There may be more differences a d/or improvements.
k1ky
k1ky's picture
Things to check..

1. Are your distance parameters set correctly?
2. Is your path totally "clear? Re-check aiming on both ends?
3. Try a different channel?

I have not found hardly any situations where 5 Mhz bandwidth works better than 10 Mhz for throughput in difficult situations. My longer links are running around 55 KM with little fading or problems, except for extreme weather and temperature inversion conditions. 30KM should be very solid if there aren't any external interference issues.  Even if you don't "see" adjacent channel (or on-channel) conflicts, there may be something hidden out there affecting performance.
 

i8fuc
Hi, thanks for comment...
Hi, thanks for comment...

The distance parameter is set to 35 km on both ends

The path is mostly on the sea surface, so for sure  temperature/humidity issues have to be taken into account...
The links enda are anyway in the city center, so for sure we have near end obstacles like tree and buildings...

Tried using different channel but no evidence of changes...

Interesting that you are managing successfully 55km links... could you  give me an idea of the signal strength and  SNR and  fading ranges for such links ?

which values of rtt  and  eventualy packet loss do you have on such links ?

Thanks for support..

Mike

 
AE6XE
AE6XE's picture
It's been a while, but I did
It's been a while, but I did have to make changes to show TxMbps on mesh status in RC or nightly builds. The differences you are seeing are probably the difference in the wireless driver version with 3.16.1.x. I'm in an airport waiting for a plane, so can't confirm for the moment. I think you can add on the shielding from here: https://www.amazon.com/Cyberteam-PowerBeam-400-Anti-Noise-Shield/dp/B00U... If the water body was introducing severe fading, I would expect the rate selection to use MCS7 or less. This sends same signal out both polarizations, then receives on both polarization on the other end and combines before decoding. This handles multipath fading much better. But this table shows this is not in use. Joe AE6XE
i8fuc
Hi Joe,
Hi Joe,

yes  I hink o add a shield is for sure a good suggestion.. I should manage to get some of them for our powerbeams...

at preset all our nodes are upgrded to the 3.17.1.0.RC1 SW version....




 
k1ky
k1ky's picture
Here is a screenshot
Here is a screenshot of the signal archive. 30.8 mile path
Signal -77dbm - -75dbm, SNR 18 - 10dbm, TXRate: 19.5Mbps TXMCS:4 RX Rate: 19.5Mbps RXMCS:10
k1ky
k1ky's picture
Looks like the screenshot didn't come through
Here is a screen shot attached as a file.
Image Attachments: 
i8fuc
nice to see your link so
nice to see your link so stable :)

at present here in our mesh we are testing over the sea links because we are around the goulf of Napoli in southern italy...  so beeing these links mostly over the sea water we should expect issues depending on the tropo conditions...

at present we have other two  links 18Km and 28 Km  also experiencing deep fading ... infact to have a stable connection we are using 25db and 30db  antennas for these links...

The present link I am discussing about is particularly critical ... we see 20db deeps  as you can see in the attached file ( 5min  sampling rate for the link) ... the tx speed obviuosly reflect these stuation..   all with a channel width 5Mhz.

mike
Image Attachments: 
KG6JEI
So I once had lunch with an
So I once had lunch with an engineer who was heavily involved in a link over water from the CONUS to Catalina Island.

They used 2 or 3 transmitter sites on land (can’t recall which it was) to get to Catalina because how frequently the links would go down, and even with the multiple sites they would still have blackouts where they just couldn’t reach the Island because of atmospherics.
AE6XE
AE6XE's picture
In regards to avoiding the
In regards to avoiding the SGI selection. Note, the SGI is half the time of the LGI. Also, when the bandwidth is cut in half, the timing is doubled on everything. There's still a 64bit DFT chip and same carrier wave count in the used bandwidth. Consequently, the time of 5mhz SGI is the same as 10 Mhz LGI. Not sure if this helps explain anything or not, however. Any seagulls perching on the antennas?
i8fuc
yesterday evening I did
yesterday evening I did several tests againg using channel width 20, 10 and 5 Mhz  ...

I got TX speeds up to 130 Mbps with the 20Mhz and the instrel was always trying to select the SGI but flipping ...

I also did an iperf  test across the link and got  interesting results:  with 20 Mhz  troughput was around 400-500 Kbit/sec, whille with 10 Mhz I got around 1 Mbit/sec and with the 5Mhz  up to 9 Mbit/sec...

the most stable in terms of RTT and packet loss was the  5 Mhz...

this should be a confirmation that the fat that the optimum setting should be the 5Mhz... maybe this is due to intersymbolic  interference due some multipath effect...

nice for the  seagulls  :)   there are a lot here !!!!!

  ... BTW  one of the ends of the link has  some big  mediterranean  pine trees  very close... so it is possible that this is creating some strong reflections  ....

we will try to move a little bit the installation point in order to see what happens.. in the mean time I will try to get a shield for the PBE ...


 
k1ky
k1ky's picture
More Altitude?
That's one thing that I forgot to ask - what are the heights above ground for the nodes?  Do you have a "clear path" with regards to the fresnel zone?  You mentioned the Pine tress, I wonder if the ocean wave heights, curvature of the earth could be getting in the way?  Seagulls most certainly get in the way if they are thick enough. We see the bird flocks on our local NWS radar in the mornings and evenings.  Got any flying fish in the path?
i8fuc
hI,  the present positioning

hI,  the present positioning of the two antennas is on the corner of a building 20 m from the ground...

The main issue is that both ends are in the city center, so there are other building around ; in one case there are some big pines over the path...

The radio mobile simulation, show a clear path if we skip the near end obstacoles; there is no problem for ground curvature.

The sea level heigth is from 100 to 200 m so I do not see at 5Ghz evidence of ocean waves issues ...

BTW the main strangness is the fact that the main component of fading is very very slow... I attach today sample just to show a typical example..


 

Image Attachments: 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer