P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.

P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510

This thread has been locked for further replies. You can start a new thread to share your ideas or ask questions.
45 Reply
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-15 22:27:16

danymarc wrote

Advise, do not bring down 5210s from tower until you deploy 510s they can work side by side cause they are on a dif. freq.
And before any settings done, update to latest FW here http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?82073-TP_PharOS_1.3.0_150807_Beta-add-CDP-Radius-MAC-Auth-and-compatible-with-MikroTik.&p=165006&viewfull=1#post165006

Great advice. I planned to leave 5210 and 510 with other address in same subnet on client location so I could log on 510 through existing link from AP location, so I will make one more POE ethernet cable through window, larger hole on window. I will setup 510 back to back on client location before go to second location. When I make 510 link I will turn off 5210 on AP location and after that on client location. I assume that I could use 5210 for another link because I have apartment (I rent this to few students) 500m from B location and unused WR740n but... not CLS (it was ideal until they build skyscraper a month ago).
  0  
  0  
#12
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-16 01:46:02

srmarkovic wrote

I use bandwith control

Im curious on this one, with what you do bandwith control, cause if with stock firmware, it sucks
  0  
  0  
#13
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-16 04:26:42



You can see bwc example on unused router and it is not tweaked for current network. It is spare test router so parametars are not as it should be, just example.

I use bandwith control with my wr740n routers, not 5210. If I dont do this I wouldnt have internet. My son starts 20 torrents, watch youtube, chat on fb and play net game same time. I asked him how he could do all this same time.... hmmm kids. There are 7 people who also use my net and a lot of devices (even Pioneer audio receiver and 2 smart Samsung TV-s, etc... Irons, cookers and fridges are still netless). Discovering bandwith control on TP-link devices was solution for me. It is not so simple, you have to tweak bandwith min and max, but once you find sweet spot it is wonderful. Everyone has sence that have unlimited net speed. Bandwith control on cheap TL routers works great!

I mostly have Cisco equipment at my work (large enterprize network with more than 6000 PC all over my country) but I can freely say that I'm amazed how TL devices work. We even replace las gen Cisco 3g, adsl routers with some HP and TP link because there is a problem with them. In last two years we started to use TP-Link equipment for our buissnes network and..... it work.
File:
wr740n.jpgDownload
  0  
  0  
#14
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-16 04:31:53



You can see bwc example on unused router and it is not tweaked for current network. It is spare test router so parametars are not as it should be, just example.

I use bandwith control with my wr740n routers, not 5210. If I dont do this I wouldnt have internet. My son starts 20 torrents, watch youtube, chat on fb and play net game same time. I asked him how he could do all this same time.... hmmm kids. There are 7 people who also use my net and a lot of devices (even Pioneer audio receiver and 2 smart Samsung TV-s, etc... Irons, cookers and fridges are still netless). Discovering bandwith control on TP-link devices was solution for me. It is not so simple, you have to tweak bandwith min and max, but once you find sweet spot it is wonderful. Everyone has sence that have unlimited net speed. Bandwith control on cheap TL routers works great!

I mostly have Cisco equipment at my work (large enterprize network with more than 6000 PC all over my country) but I can freely say that I'm amazed how TL devices work. We even replace las gen Cisco 3g, adsl routers with some HP and TP link because there is a problem with them. In last two years we started to use TP-Link equipment for our buissnes network and..... it work.
  0  
  0  
#15
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-16 04:44:15
I never mixed p2p link with local wireless network on same device. wr740n is soo cheap but works flawless for local wireless!
  0  
  0  
#16
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-16 08:11:11
I never seen a 740 or 741 (my first choice too) work 24/7 with stock firmware.
Homes here in Mexico due to earthquakes are concrete and steel, lots of them, and that makes a 2.4 freq. router a difficult work, thats why with stock, they dont work well, at least they need a reboot, 2 times a week, with third party solutions that is accomplished automatic, and Gargoyle has the grail in bandwith control, and those 740 or 741 ones, perform next to perfect.
  0  
  0  
#17
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-18 19:30:18

danymarc wrote

I never seen a 740 or 741 (my first choice too) work 24/7 with stock firmware.
Homes here in Mexico due to earthquakes are concrete and steel, lots of them, and that makes a 2.4 freq. router a difficult work, thats why with stock, they dont work well, at least they need a reboot, 2 times a week, with third party solutions that is accomplished automatic, and Gargoyle has the grail in bandwith control, and those 740 or 741 ones, perform next to perfect.

I had problem with 740. After a our or less of strong wirelles file transfer it stuck, no wireless avaible until reset. There was one more problem router was working but no http interface, no management until reset. I found one firmware which was without this problems. It was 3.16.5 Build 130329 Rel.62825n. With this firmware my 740 routers up time now is 314days (I have UPS on each side). Every other older or new firmware didnt work.



I have to wait until October 22nd. I paid 142€ for two cpe510, 71€ per unit, and it will be posted to me in tuesday.


I will post results when I replace devices but here is description of existing link:

1. Speed




2. Client 5210




3. AP Location from client side


  0  
  0  
#18
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-18 22:17:09
first picture 2. Client 5210 is there a possibility to place 510 on its arrival on the roof, and not upside down, so you wont have problems (as you do now) with fresnel zone, 2.4 freq. lets you get away with many issues, but 5 Ghrz. freq. its sensible.
your posts on 740, talk about router, I assume they are not on router mode, they are in AP mode, am I correct.
and October 22nd is a typo mistake, you meant Sept. 22
  0  
  0  
#19
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-19 04:42:00

danymarc wrote

first picture 2. Client 5210 is there a possibility to place 510 on its arrival on the roof, and not upside down, so you wont have problems (as you do now) with fresnel zone, 2.4 freq. lets you get away with many issues, but 5 Ghrz. freq. its sensible.
your posts on 740, talk about router, I assume they are not on router mode, they are in AP mode, am I correct.
and October 22nd is a typo mistake, you meant Sept. 22


My 5210 was on roof on a pole which was 15 m higher, after that I put it down but outside terrace which was closed with metal frame and plastic persiennes. In boat cases I had 10Mbs. Somehow terrace and metal frames and metal fence make directed dish or something like this so I have stabile 15Mbs or more in nowday placement. There was no diference in normal vs upside down position in signal or speed and it was easy to put it this way, router was not outside in the rain. I tried all combination 4 years ago when I made this p2p and this was the best combination.
I have other problem, more than 100 wireless APs. Yesterday p2p speed and internet speed dropped under 1Mbs. I was on 2nd channal and somehow this channal was overloaded. My p2p now work good only on ch 8, other channals are more than full. That's why I want to replace APs with 5GHz devices. I will try just to put 510 on 5210 place but maybe I'll have to put it on a pole if I have problem wit fresnel. Btw. Simple fresnel calculation is r=8,657*sqrt(D/f) where D is distance in km f is frequency in GHz. So higher f less r.

My mistake I meant Sept. 22.
  0  
  0  
#20
Options
Re:P2P TL-WA5210G vs CPE510
2015-09-20 00:08:34
To avoid crowded 2.4 Ghz freq. WISPs flash 5210 Version 1, that will let you use other channels like 13 or 14 that are not as crowded as the regulars
It only applys to Version 1 if you have a Ver. 2 forget it, just make sure the interface reads Ver 1, it does not matter what the sticker or the box says, it's what you read on web interface, I had lots of Version 2 on the box and on the sticker, but they where really Version 1, cause that's what the web interface says
  0  
  0  
#21
Options
Related Articles