I got two Metal 52 ac connected to each other, currently only 50ft from each other and doing a internal speed test (TCP/Both/random) and only getting about 40 Mpbs
Not sure if that is good/bad, what other things could I look at improving?
I need to stay at 5G
Both are set as
5G N/AC
20/40 eC
Atenna Gain - 6
indoor now - but plan to change to outdoor later
TX power is default, Is this something I should change?
anything else you can offer would be great
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
In general you want to adjust the TX/RX Signal Strength to be equal and around -50dbm.
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
currently its floating around -71/-72 and they are on 50ft apart.
I'm kind of trying to build a outdoor version of the Audience - but also thinking the Metal 52 ac is the wrong starting point, should I be doing this with OmniTIK 5 ac hardware?
I'm kind of trying to build a outdoor version of the Audience - but also thinking the Metal 52 ac is the wrong starting point, should I be doing this with OmniTIK 5 ac hardware?
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
currently its floating around -71/-72 and they are on 50ft apart.
That's extremely punk at 50'. Something is wrong.
Sorry for the basic question, but what antenna do you have attached and are you sure it's rated for the frequency you chose?
A couple years ago, I asked MikroTik a relevant question; they responded:
Metal 2 comes with 2.4ghz antenna and Metal 52 has dual band antenna that supports both 2.4 and 5 ghz.
Now, these antennas happen to look identical. If you mixed them up in inventory... or if they happened to enclose the wrong one in the box... you would see behavior like this.
If you have any other 5GHz omnis in stock, try replacing them and see if the numbers improve drastically.
One other comment: the Metal line is particularly inefficient for all but special purposes because it is a single-pol device. You will not get the bandwidth or the distance you will with a dual-pol device such as the wAP or OmniTIK.
Also, as you have probably determined by now, you can't run the wireless at both frequency bands at once, which you may be trying to do if you are trying to emulate an Audience. if I were looking to do this, I would start with back-to-back wAPs, which come in both frequencies.
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
using the antenna that came in the box, both are 52ac so hoppfully they aren't the wrong ones from packing.
So the OmniTIK would be better with its dual chain? then I thought of putting a mAP lite on each one for clients to connect too.
So the OmniTIK would be better with its dual chain? then I thought of putting a mAP lite on each one for clients to connect too.
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
using the antenna that came in the box, both are 52ac so hoppfully they aren't the wrong ones from packing.
So the OmniTIK would be better with its dual chain? then I thought of putting a mAP lite on each one for clients to connect too.
Do you want an indoor or an outdoor machine? Because mAP lites aren't weatherproof, but if you want an indoor machine there's no reason to pay for the OmniTik's weatherproofing and there are better choices.
Have you looked at back-to-back wAPs? It's the way I would go for an outdoor machine.
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
I know the mAP lites aren't weatherproof, but was hoping I could stuff it in the cable cover. But yes I want it outside.
But back on track with my two Metal 52 ac's it bugs me that I can't get more then 100mb one way with the speed test inside winbox. Is there something I could post that someone might checkout for me.
But back on track with my two Metal 52 ac's it bugs me that I can't get more then 100mb one way with the speed test inside winbox. Is there something I could post that someone might checkout for me.
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
its getting better, been making some changes
under Registration
now showing -57
I change both to 20/40/80 xxxx for fun with auto freq and now getting about 119 Mbps oneway
Will I ever hit close to the 433 number?
under Registration
now showing -57
I change both to 20/40/80 xxxx for fun with auto freq and now getting about 119 Mbps oneway
Will I ever hit close to the 433 number?
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
The problem with expecting the MikroTik bandwidth test to show you an accurate wireless throughput is that most of the units dedicated to serious wireless don't have powerful CPUs, and the CPUs at the far end max out trying to run all the bandwidth test servers long before the wireless link is saturated. The proper way to measure the wireless bandwidth is to cable the device on the far end to a more powerful MikroTik router, and then test all the way through to that.
The problem with using wide channel widths, especially on mobile devices, is that they will be subject to interference from existing networks in the area already using any frequency in that range. Also, for each increase in channel width, your transmit power is cut significantly.
For maximum bandwidth, these devices are expected to be run point to point with high-gain directional antennas. You are using an inherently inefficient configuration, omni to omni antenna. Don't expect to get the maximum performance out of that arrangement. Also, don't expect to get the bandwidth out of a single polarity device that you would get out of a dual.
The problem with using wide channel widths, especially on mobile devices, is that they will be subject to interference from existing networks in the area already using any frequency in that range. Also, for each increase in channel width, your transmit power is cut significantly.
For maximum bandwidth, these devices are expected to be run point to point with high-gain directional antennas. You are using an inherently inefficient configuration, omni to omni antenna. Don't expect to get the maximum performance out of that arrangement. Also, don't expect to get the bandwidth out of a single polarity device that you would get out of a dual.
Re: Metal 52 ac to Metal 52 ac
thank youThe problem with expecting the MikroTik bandwidth test to show you an accurate wireless throughput is that most of the units dedicated to serious wireless don't have powerful CPUs, and the CPUs at the far end max out trying to run all the bandwidth test servers long before the wireless link is saturated. The proper way to measure the wireless bandwidth is to cable the device on the far end to a more powerful MikroTik router, and then test all the way through to that.
The problem with using wide channel widths, especially on mobile devices, is that they will be subject to interference from existing networks in the area already using any frequency in that range. Also, for each increase in channel width, your transmit power is cut significantly.
For maximum bandwidth, these devices are expected to be run point to point with high-gain directional antennas. You are using an inherently inefficient configuration, omni to omni antenna. Don't expect to get the maximum performance out of that arrangement. Also, don't expect to get the bandwidth out of a single polarity device that you would get out of a dual.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests