Note, that under OpenWRT Barrier Breaker (that 3.16.1.0b1 is on top of), only the 802.11n LGI (Long Guard Interval at 800ns) is supported. Once we upgrade to Chaos Calmer, this will include options to use the SGI (Short Guard Interval at 400 ns) = a littler higher rates. Consequently, make sure you are looking at the correct rate tables.
An 802.11n node, when communicating with another 802.11n neighbor, builds a rate selection table and tests the various rate options (<10% searching around of packets). It keeps statistics of the success rates and picks the maximum throughput option (which is show now in mesh status). The rate selection table looks like this. These tables are all basd on 20Mhz channel width. Big "T" is best throughput, little "t' is 2nd best. This neighbor is ~10 miles away--a RocketDish.
Total packet count:: ideal 9082 lookaround 336
Average A-MPDU length: 1.0
Note, if the neighbor was only a single antenna device (non-MIMO), then the MCS8 to MCS15 rates would not show (which are 2 spatial streams of data).
When the same 802.11n node talks to another device (at the same time) that is only 802.11a/g, the rate selection it looks to send at matches. "A" is best throughput, "B" is next best, etc. This neighbor is 8 miles away, is a NanoBridge, and not yet upgraded to 802.11n. This is what it looked like historically with BBHN/AREDN in all releases.
To compare the throughput between these specific rate tables, there may not be enough packet attempts to have a good characterization of the link--150 packets is probably not enough to characterize the link. Best send HD video over the link first :) .
Edit: to add more context on the neighbor nodes.
Note, that under OpenWRT Barrier Breaker (that 3.16.1.0b1 is on top of), only the 802.11n LGI (Long Guard Interval at 800ns) is supported. Once we upgrade to Chaos Calmer, this will include options to use the SGI (Short Guard Interval at 400 ns) = a littler higher rates. Consequently, make sure you are looking at the correct rate tables.
An 802.11n node, when communicating with another 802.11n neighbor, builds a rate selection table and tests the various rate options (<10% searching around of packets). It keeps statistics of the success rates and picks the maximum throughput option (which is show now in mesh status). The rate selection table looks like this. These tables are all basd on 20Mhz channel width. Big "T" is best throughput, little "t' is 2nd best. This neighbor is ~10 miles away--a RocketDish.
type rate throughput ewma prob this prob retry this succ/attempt success attempts
HT20/LGI MCS0 5.6 100.0 100.0 1 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS1 10.5 100.0 100.0 0 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS2 14.8 100.0 100.0 0 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS3 18.6 100.0 100.0 0 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS4 25.1 100.0 100.0 5 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS5 30.3 98.1 100.0 5 0( 0) 48 51
HT20/LGI P MCS6 32.5 92.7 100.0 5 0( 0) 48 69
HT20/LGI MCS7 31.8 81.8 100.0 5 0( 0) 35 70
HT20/LGI MCS8 10.5 100.0 100.0 0 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS9 18.6 100.0 100.0 0 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS10 25.1 100.0 100.0 0 0( 0) 1 1
HT20/LGI MCS11 30.3 99.9 100.0 5 0( 0) 32 33
HT20/LGI t MCS12 37.6 87.4 50.0 6 0( 0) 4681 4981
HT20/LGI T MCS13 44.0 97.8 100.0 6 0( 0) 4142 4917
HT20/LGI MCS14 16.3 31.6 100.0 6 0( 0) 412 710
HT20/LGI MCS15 0.0 1.4 0.0 6 0( 0) 11 132
Total packet count:: ideal 9082 lookaround 336
Average A-MPDU length: 1.0
Note, if the neighbor was only a single antenna device (non-MIMO), then the MCS8 to MCS15 rates would not show (which are 2 spatial streams of data).
When the same 802.11n node talks to another device (at the same time) that is only 802.11a/g, the rate selection it looks to send at matches. "A" is best throughput, "B" is next best, etc. This neighbor is 8 miles away, is a NanoBridge, and not yet upgraded to 802.11n. This is what it looked like historically with BBHN/AREDN in all releases.
Average A-MPDU length: 1.0
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success attempts
6 1.5 25.0 100.0 0( 0) 1 1
9 2.2 25.0 100.0 0( 0) 1 1
12 2.9 25.0 100.0 0( 0) 1 1
18 4.3 25.0 100.0 0( 0) 1 1
D 24 5.6 25.0 100.0 0( 0) 1 1
C 36 8.1 25.0 100.0 0( 0) 1 1
A P 48 41.5 99.7 100.0 1( 1) 150 155
B 54 20.2 43.7 100.0 0( 0) 2 2
Total packet count:: ideal 142 lookaround 16
To compare the throughput between these specific rate tables, there may not be enough packet attempts to have a good characterization of the link--150 packets is probably not enough to characterize the link. Best send HD video over the link first :) .