Help needed - someone with ubiquiti skills

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
If you haven't change the settings from the factory then the bandwidth will probably only be set to 40MHz, that limits the bandwidth considerably.

Here is a screenshot of one of mine. Note have channels on Auto at the moment as was having a play. This is under device settings when you click on an access point.

1627056803599.png


Don't remember ever putting the WiFi password in Sky Q at initial start.
 

Adam M

Active Member
Little changes really helping.

internal 2.4 set to 20mhz and low power. 5 set to 80 and high or auto (not sure which).

fair bandwidth share was on, now off.

external power set to high, 40 and 80.

no neighbouring APs on the same channels laterally and vertically.

now getting 400mbps everywhere.

will see what that means in practice.
 

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
Little changes really helping.

internal 2.4 set to 20mhz and low power. 5 set to 80 and high or auto (not sure which).

fair bandwidth share was on, now off.

external power set to high, 40 and 80.

no neighbouring APs on the same channels laterally and vertically.

now getting 400mbps everywhere.

will see what that means in practice.

Sounds like a result then :)
 

Adam M

Active Member
Scrap that, 350 everywhere inside.

iPhone does seem to be hanging on to other rooms as I move around.

Not managed to improve outdoors yet.
 
Last edited:

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
Scrap that, 350 everywhere inside.

iPhone does seem to be hanging on to other rooms as I move around.

Not managed to improve outdoors yet.

What's wrong with that speed then?

iPhone is behaving as expected, it's the client that decides what AP to connect to. You can give it a few hints and even force disassociation but its up to the client.

You will spend a lot of time (and money) chasing the headline speeds.

Look it a different way what is the minimum speed you need to get to each client. Is 50Mbps ok, is 100Mbps. Streaming services will never use more than that so above that you have software downloads (relatively rare).

If you bought 900Mbps service for WiFi only then you will be overpaying for it. I would argue that the majority of households don't need more than 200Mbps on average. If you want more then you really ought to have a use case for it and make sure that you can actually use it.
 

Adam M

Active Member
Nothings wrong with that speed. Is the most I’ve achieved and is the most consistent across the house.

was previously 60/70 with the occasional 150.

I’m very pleased with the numbers now.

need to sort outside speed now.
 

mickevh

Distinguished Member
Wi-Fi Link Rates ("Speeds") have always been variable as the signalling conditions dictate.

I volunteer the following as a bit of a thought experiment/exposition:

Back in olden days when top rate for 802.11G (let's say) was 54mbps, that was fairly easy to achieve with the technology available. But no matter how "good" the signalling conditions are, G was never going to go any faster than 54mbps. So if one stood at the fringe of a coverage area and walked towards an AP, quite quickly we'd reach a point where 54 was achieved, but no matter how much closer to the AP we move, 54 was never exceeded.

So this gives the illusion of "really good stable coverage" of 54mbps over a wide area. But the signalling conditions may have been good enough closer to the AP to go even faster if only the standards permitted it.

Since 802.11A/G there has been evolutions (and a few revolutions) in the technology to both eek out more performance at the fringes (though not much) and take advantage of better signalling conditions to go faster nearer the AP's.

So with some newer Wi-Fi tech, if I repeat my previous thought experiment walk towards an AP, it may be a bit quicker at the edge, step up to higher rates as I move in, and keep on going getting faster as I approach the AP's rather than "topping out and getting no better" at some locale.

But that of course looks like more variance in the Link Rates that are no longer "Xmbps everywhere."

In an echo of @ChuckMoutain's latest post, of course we can just be a bit "zen" about it and if it's "fast enough" for what we want to do, just not worry about the details and get on with life.

It's interesting to note that in "big boys" enterprise class Wi-Fi solutions, one of the toys we often have available to play with is a mechanism to cap the maximum bandwidth in a per client basis. So for example, if I've got an AP in classroom (I've worked for some colleges) we might put a (let's say) 50mbps (throughput) limit per client so that one device does not monopolise the air time. This sort of thing is not often available in cheap SOHO kit, but maybe something a bit more up market like Ubiqiti offers it..? (Though I wouldn't bother using it unless I really needed to - like for instance my child was bandwidth hogging or I want to assure some bandwidth to (say) the TV - though I'd much prefer to use wires for fixed infrastructure where speed/reliability matters.)
 
Last edited:

Adam M

Active Member
I can confirm that the ubiquiti absolutely does have that feature. I have also turned it off.
 

Thug

Moderator
As already mentioned, stick to channels 1,6 and 11.
Sorry for highjacking thread, but its an interesting subject as i am also a Ubiquiti owner (been helped a few times on this board).
The extent of my previous knowledge was 'switching on my BT modem/router' and that was it.

If we should stick to 1,6 and 11 then wont everyone else in your area also be sticking to that too, which could potentially cause more interference? I know i had lots of issues with these settings.
The reason I ask is that i have a UDM, a LITE and a LR and have them set to 7,4 and 13 and they appear to work great.
In fact i have a gym at the end of my garden about 15-20 meters away and the Alexa in there connects to my UDM in my living room at 100%. I couldnt get that with the recommended channels.
I guess that shows the importance of trial and error.
 
Last edited:

oneman

Well-known Member
Sorry for highjacking thread, but its an interesting subject as i am also a Ubiquiti owner (been helped a few times on this board).
The extent of my previous knowledge was 'switching on my BT modem/router' and that was it.

If we should stick to 1,6 and 11 then wont everyone else in your area also be sticking to that too, which could potentially cause more interference? I know i had lots of issues with these settings.
The reason I ask is that i have a UDM, a LITE and a LR and have them set to 7,4 and 13 and they appear to work great.
In fact i have a gym at the end of my garden about 15 meters away and the Alexa in there connects to my UDM in my living room at 100%. I couldnt get that with the recommended channels.
I guess that shows the importance of trial and error.
the reason for 1, 6 and 11 is that it you are going to get the least interference from neighbouring channels. For for example on channel 6 you still get 'bleed' to channels 4, 5, 7 and 8. However as you say it possible that neighbours may be using one of those as well so why sometimes you may not get the choice of using them.

Just something to be aware of is that 13 is EU only and devices with US settings won't be able to use it. If its working for you then great.
 

mickevh

Distinguished Member
There's also another subtlety in that the Wi-Fi protocols include a kind of "good neighbour" protocol so that neighbouring cells tuned to the same radio channel cooperate with each other to not stomp over each other's transmissions (though this can effect throughput.) Transmissions for neighbouring cells that are tuned to similar but not identical channels "interfere" with each other as @oneman describes but because they are not "aligned" the neighbouring cells do not "hear" each other as Wi-Fi transmission and are just treated as "noise" and the "good neighbour" protocol does not kick in.

Wi-Fi is a "listen before talk" protocol and there are rules about how loud a "alien" (non Wi-Fi) transmission needs to be before Wi-Fi will not transmit - the levels for "alien" versus "other Wi-Fi" systems are such that Wi-Fi will defer transmission for "alien" sources at lower signal thresholds than other Wi-FI sources. So it's better to be aligned with other Wi-Fi cells in your area as the good neighbour protocols actually make things better not worse.

So I would not, in the face of other Wi-Fi systems nearby, tune to non-aligned channel tuning - I would tune in step with everyone else. It's more likely to be faster and more reliable that way.
 

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: We review Dune and ask which is the best decade for horror movies?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom