gb and gsl dimensioning edge trial report ed2.1 (vms)

7/28/2019 Gb and GSL Dimensioning EDGE Trial Report Ed2.1 (VMS)

1/35

EDGE TRIAL FINAL REPORTEDGE TRIAL FINAL REPORT

2 Creation Anawat Diwitaya

ED CHANGE NOTE APPRAISAL AUTHORITY ORIGINATOR

ED 2.1 VMS : EDGE Trial Final Report Released

MND EDGE Trial Report Ed2.1.doc REFERENCE


2/35

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction..................................................................3

1.1 Scope of Trial.........................................................................3

1.2 Document Structure...............................................................3

2 Trial description............................................................4

2.1 Trial Area..............................................................................4

2.2 Test Tool...............................................................................4

Radio measurement tool:............................................................4

End User QoS measurement tool:.................................................4

Radio QoS statistic tool: .............................................................4

EDGE terminal:...........................................................................4

2.3 Schedule Plan........................................................................5

3 Trial RESULT..................................................................6

3.1 Access the EDGE performance impact due to TRX Type (BCCH,TCH)...........................................................................................6

3.2 EDGE performance, Extra TS=0 with difference number ofMAX_PDCH..................................................................................8

3.3 GPRS vs edge Perforamnce (Ping, web, ftp)...........................10

3.3.1 Ping 103.3.2 Web 133.3.3 FTP 15

4 Gprs & edge qos statistic.............................................17

4.1 TBF Establishment Phase......................................................17

4.2 TBF RELEASE PHASE.............................................................18

4.3 Data Packet Traffic...............................................................19

4.4 Data Transfer throughput.....................................................21

5 Bss dimensioning result...............................................22

5.1 Extra Abis TS.......................................................................225.2 GPU AND ATer Mux...............................................................25


MND EDGE Trial Report Ed2.1.doc REFERENCE 1/36


3/35

5.3 Gb Interface.........................................................................29

6 Conclusion...................................................................32

APPENDIX A: Edge Throughput (Internal FTP Server)......33

APPENDIX B: EDGE PARAMETER setting..........................34




4/35

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPE OF TRIAL

This document is created as a guideline for EDGE implementation in theVMS network. The purpose of this trial is to help the customer to define thebest EDGE introduction strategy, as well as to assess the improvementbrought by EDGE radio access on the commercial network, in term of thethroughput of data service.

1.2 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

Section1 of this document presents the scope of this trial and documentstructure.

Section2 presents trial description: Test cell, Test Tool.

Section3 identifies test description and result of each sub-part.- Access the EDGE performance impact due to TRX Type (BCCH, TCH)- Access the EDGE performance, which brought by new feature

Autonomous Packet Resource Allocation- Compare the performance between EDGE and GPRS on difference

application

Ping

Web

FTP

Section4 present GPRS & EDGE Qos statistic.

Section5 present EDGE BSS dimensioning result.

Annex part presents.- Edge Throughput (Internal FTP Server)

- EDGE parameter setting.




5/35

2 TRIAL DESCRIPTION

2.1 TRIAL AREA

Select test cell 10146 (HNI_HMI3_GIAP_BAT_1800_C), which cover VMSOMC. In order to modify/check radio parameter easily. This cell using 1800frequency band and under BSC GIAP_BAT_3.

Site location is show in picture below.

Figure 1 : Trial cell

2.2 TEST TOOL

RADIO MEASUREMENT TOOL:

- Drive test software NEMO Outdoor version 4.0

END USER QOS MEASUREMENT TOOL:

- DEUTRIP version 3.2 for Ping and Web test.- Dos command for FTP test.

RADIO QOS STATISTIC TOOL:

- AnaQos version 1.99

EDGE TERMINAL:

- Nokia N80 (EDGE Class B , Multislot Class 11 : 4+3)




6/35

2.3 SCHEDULE PLAN

Figure 2 : Trial schedule




7/35

3 TRIAL RESULT

3.1 ACCESS THE EDGE PERFORMANCE IMPACT DUE TO TRX TYPE (BCCH, TCH)

Objective: To decide on which TRX type (BCCH, TCH) will implement EDGE.Base on assumption that BCCH frequency has quality better than TCHfrequency.

Test Cells : 10146 (HNI_HMI3_GIAP_BAT_1800_C)

Parameter setting & Time slot configuration :

Test Procedure:

BCCH- Set parameter using BCCH setting.- FTP file ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/al01_12e.pdf using nokia N80 (4+3)

- Record application throughput.

TCH- Set parameter using TCH setting.- FTP file ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/al01_12e.pdf using nokia N80 (4+3)- Record application throughput.




8/35

Test Result :

Average application through and Max RLC throughput on BCCH slightly

higher compare to throughput on TCH. This is due to variation of MeanBEPand CV BEP on TCH but stable on BCCH.

The variation of MeanBEP and CV_BEP on TCH is due to synthesizedhopping on TCH, which frequency list is same for all BTS. The BCCHfrequency is clean so, MeanBEP and CV_BEP on BCCH test is stable.

Figure 3 : EDGE Throughput on BCCH and TCH

Figure 4 : MeanBEP and CV BEP on BCCH (No Hop)

Figure 5 : Mean BEP and CV BEP on TCH (NH/RH)




9/35

3.2 EDGE PERFORMANCE, EXTRA TS=0 WITH DIFFERENCE NUMBER OF MAX_PDCH

Objective: To access maximum MCS / Throughput gain, when tuningparameter for feature Autonomous Packet Resource Allocation.- Extra TS=0, Max PDCH = 04, TRX prefmark = 0 for BCCH and 1 for TCH.- Extra TS=0, Max PDCH = 18, TRX perfmark = 0 for all TRX.






10/35

Test Procedure:

Max PDCH = 4

- Set parameter using Max PDCH =4 setting.- FTP file ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/al01_12e.pdf using nokia N80 (4+3)- Record application throughput.

Max PDCH = 18- Set parameter using Max PDCH = 18setting.- FTP file ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/al01_12e.pdf using nokia N80 (4+3)- Record application throughput.

Test Result :

Maximum coding scheme on radio interface for both case are MCS9. This isdue to good radio condition (Mean BEP = 31 and CV BEP = 7). But themaximum RLC throughput is difference.

In case of MAX_PDCH =18, the maximum RLC throughput is ~52 kbps perPDCH. (End-2-End = MCS-8). By calculate maximum MCS of this setting.Maximum number of Abis TS is = 18 (basic) + 9 (bonus) = 27, so themaximum MCS is MCS-9 (4 * 4.49 = 17.96 Abis TS). By the way, in normalsituation basic abis nibble is vary from 4 to 18 depend on CS & PS load in

the cells.

In case of MAX_PDCH =4, the maximum RLC throughput is ~29 kbps perPDCH. (End-2-End = MCS-6). By calculate maximum MCS of this setting.Maximum number of Abis TS is = 4 (basic) + 9 (bonus) = 13 , So themaximum MCS is MCS-6 (4 *2.36 = 9.44 Abis TS)

Figure 6 : EDGE Throughput with Extra TS =0 with Max PDCH = 4 and 18




11/35

3.3 GPRS VS EDGE PERFORAMNCE (PING, WEB, FTP)

3.3.1 Ping

Objective: Assess EDGE improvement compare to GPRS in term of roundtrip delay and accessibility.






12/35

Test Procedure:

GPRS 32 Bytes

- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to disable.- Test using nokia N80 (4+3) at good radio condition.- Configure DEUTRIP version 3.2 Ping modules.- Server: 210.245.0.11 (DNS)- Data Packet Size (bytes) : 32- Time Out (ms) : 5000- Ping for 101 iteration (ignore 1st iteration)

EDGE 32 Bytes- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to enable.

- Test using nokia N80 (4+3) at good radio condition.- Configure DEUTRIP version 3.2 Ping modules.- Server: 210.245.0.11 (DNS)- Data Packet Size (bytes) : 32- Time Out (ms) : 5000- Ping for 101 iteration (ignore 1st iteration)

GPRS 512 Bytes- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to disable.- Test using nokia N80 (4+3) at good radio condition.

- Configure DEUTRIP version 3.2 Ping modules.- Server: 210.245.0.11 (DNS)- Data Packet Size (bytes) : 512- Time Out (ms) : 5000- Ping for 101 iteration (ignore 1st iteration)

EDGE 512 Bytes- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to enable.- Test using nokia N80 (4+3) at good radio condition.- Configure DEUTRIP version 3.2 Ping modules.

- Server: 210.245.0.11 (DNS)- Data Packet Size (bytes) : 512- Time Out (ms) : 5000- Ping for 101 iteration (ignore 1st iteration)




13/35

Test Result :

Ping 32 byte :

Very little difference between GPRS and EDGE in term of delay. Differenceof round trip time between GPRS and EDGE is about 20 ms. Ping successrate for both GPRS and EDGE is 100%.

Figure 7 : Ping 32 byte GPRS vs. EDGE

Ping 512 byte :

EDGE have lower average round trip delay compare to GPRS about 300 ms.EDGE improve round trip delay around 25%compare to GPRS. Due to thefact that ping with big file size GPRS will use higher number of RLC block(CS2 1 RLC block = 30 bytes) compare to EDGE (MCS8: 1 RLC block = 68bytes).

Figure 8 : Ping 512 byte GPRS vs. EDGE




14/35

3.3.2 Web

Objective: Assess EDGE improvement compare to GPRS in term of pageview time for web application.



Test Procedure:

GPRS

- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to disable.- Test using nokia N80 (4+3) at good radio condition.- Configure DEUTRIP version 3.2 Web module.- Address : www.mobifone.com.vn/web/vn/- Load for 5 iteration.

EDGE

- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to enable.- Test using nokia N80 (4+3) at good radio condition.- Configure DEUTRIP version 3.2 Web module.- Address : www.mobifone.com.vn/web/vn/- Load for 5 iteration.




15/35

Test Result :

Average EDGE page preview time is shorter than GPRS by 40 second. EDGE

using only 60% of the time compare to GPRS to view the same web page(www.mobifone.com.vn/web/vn/).

Web page preview success for both GPRS and EDGE is 100%.

Figure 9 : Web GPRS vs. EDGE


http://www.mobifone.com.vn/web/vn/http://www.mobifone.com.vn/web/vn/


16/35

3.3.3 FTP

Objective: Assess EDGE improvement compare to GPRS in term of datathroughput for FTP application.



Test Procedure:

GPRS

- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to disable.- FTP file ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/al01_12e.pdf using nokia N80 (4+3)- Load for 5 iteration.

EDGE

- Set parameter EN_EGPRS to enable.- FTP file ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/al01_12e.pdf using nokia N80 (4+3)- Load for 5 iteration.




17/35

Test Result :EDGE average application throughput is higher than GPRS ~18.8Kbps/PDCH. Gain of EDGE throughput compare to GPRS is 200%.

Average EDGE application throughput is around 28 Kbps per PDCH, whichis lower than the theoretical value at 59 Kbps per PDCH. The main reasonis due to bad effect of internet server.

Appendix A show the result of FTP throughput test with internal FTP server.

Figure 10 : FTP GPRS vs. EDGE




18/35

4 GPRS & EDGE QOS STATISTIC

4.1 TBF ESTABLISHMENT PHASE

Alc_GPRS_UL_TBF_estab

0.0

1000000.02000000.0

3000000.04000000.0

5000000.0

6000000.07000000.0

8000000.09000000.0

10000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

50.0%

55.0%60.0%

65.0%70.0%

75.0%

80.0%85.0%

90.0%95.0%

100.0%BSS fail

Gb fail

Radio fail

Congestion

Request

% Allocated

% Success

Figure 11 : UL TBF establishment

Alc_GPRS_DL_TBF_estab

0.0

500000.0

1000000.0

1500000.0

2000000.0

2500000.0

3000000.0

3500000.0

4000000.0

4500000.0

5000000.0

xx

/xx

12/12

12/14

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/24

12/26

12/30

01/01

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/11

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%BSS fail

Gb fail

Radio fail

Congestion

Request

% Allocated

% Success

Figure 12 : DL TBF establishment

Both UL and DL TBF establishment success rate remain stable after EDGEactivation on 17 Dec 07. UL TBF establishment success rate stable at 92%and DL TBF establishment success rate stable at 96%.



EDGE Activation

EDGE Activation


19/35

4.2 TBF RELEASE PHASE

Alc_GPRS_UL_data_transfer

0.0

100000.0

200000.0

300000.0

400000.0

500000.0

600000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

50.0%

55.0%60.0%

65.0%70.0%

75.0%

80.0%85.0%

90.0%95.0%

100.0%Blocking drop

Stagnat drop

BSS drop

Gb drop

Realloc Drop

Radio Drop

Real radio drop

% Norm Release

% Acc Release

Figure 13 : UL data transfer

Alc_GPRS_DL_data_transfer

0.0

50000.0100000.0

150000.0

200000.0

250000.0

300000.0350000.0

400000.0450000.0

500000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

50.0%

55.0%60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%85.0%

90.0%95.0%

100.0%Blocking drop

Stagnat drop

BSS drop

Gb drop

Realloc Drop

Radio Drop

Real radio drop

% Norm Release

% Acc Release

Figure 14 : DL data transfer

Both UL and DL TBF Normal release rate remain stable after EDGEactivation on 17 Dec 07. UL TBF normal release rate stable at 95%. DL TBFnormal release rate stable at 92%.

Reallocate Drop decrease on both UL and DL since 13 Jan 08. This is due tonumber of UL and DL TBF reallocation are decrease after modify BSCparameter AGprsGprsMultislotClassDefValue from 8 to 1.



EDGE Activation

EDGE Activation

Modify GprsMultislotClassDefValue from 8 to 1

Modify GprsMultislotClassDefValue from 8 to 1


20/35

4.3 DATA PACKET TRAFFIC

Alc_GPRS_UL_useful_traffic

0.0

5000000.0

10000000.0

15000000.0

20000000.0

25000000.0

30000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/11

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%70.0%

80.0%90.0%

100.0%

CS4 usef

CS3 usef

CS2 usef

CS1 usef

%io CSx usef

Figure 15 : UL GPRS Traffic

Alc_GPRS_DL_useful_traffic

0.0

10000000.0

20000000.0

30000000.0

40000000.0

50000000.0

60000000.0

70000000.0

80000000.0

90000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/24

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

0.0%

10.0%20.0%

30.0%40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

CS4 usef

CS3 usef

CS2 usef

CS1 usef

%io CSx usef

Figure 16 : DL GPRS Traffic

Alc_EGPRS_UL_useful_traffic

0.0

2000000.0

4000000.0

6000000.0

8000000.0

10000000.0

12000000.0

14000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/01

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

0.0%

10.0%20.0%

30.0%40.0%

50.0%

60.0%70.0%

80.0%90.0%

100.0%

MCS4 usef

MCS3 usef

MCS2 usef

MCS1 usef

%io MCSx usef

%io MCS4 usef

Figure 17 : UL EDGE Traffic

Alc_EGPRS_DL_useful_traffic

0.0

5000000.0

10000000.0

15000000.0

20000000.0

25000000.0

30000000.0

35000000.0

40000000.0

45000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

0.0%

10.0%20.0%

30.0%40.0%

50.0%

60.0%70.0%

80.0%90.0%

100.0%MCS9 usef

MCS8 usef

MCS7 usef

MCS6 usef

MCS5 usef

MCS4 usef

MCS3 usef

MCS2 usef

MCS1 usef

%io MCSxusef

%io 8PSKusef

Figure 18 : DL EDGE Traffic



EDGE Activation

EDGE Activation

EDGE Activation

EDGE Activation


21/35

Alc_GPRS_EGPRS_UL_traffic

0.0

100000000.0

200000000.0

300000000.0

400000000.0

500000000.0

600000000.0

700000000.0

800000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

MCSx lost byt

CSx lost byt

MCSx retr byt

CSx retr byt

MCSx usef byt

CSx usef byt

Figure 19 : UL GPRS & EDGE Traffic

Alc_GPRS_EGPRS_DL_traffic

0.0

500000000.0

1000000000.0

1500000000.0

2000000000.0

2500000000.0

3000000000.0

3500000000.04000000000.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

MCSx lost byt

CSx lost byt

MCSx retr byt

CSx retr byt

MCSx usef byt

CSx usef byt

Figure 20 : DL GPRS & EDGE Traffic

UL and DL MCS (EDGE) traffic start increase since 18 Dec 07 after EDGEactivation on 17 Dec 07. For UL direction % CS traffic decrease from 99.5%to 50% and % UL MCS traffic increase from 0.5% to 50%. For DL direction% DL CS traffic decrease from 99.5% to 45% and % DL MCS traffic increasefrom 0.5% to 55%.



EDGE Activation

EDGE Activation


22/35

4.4 DATA TRANSFER THROUGHPUT

Alc_GPRS_UL_throughput

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

Kbit/s per TBF

Kbit/s per PDCH

Kbit/s per cell

Alc_GPRS_DL_throughput

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.012.0

14.0

16.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

kbit/s per TBF

kbit/s per PDCH

kbit/s per cell

Figure 21 : UL/DL GPRS Throughput

Alc_EGPRS_UL_throughput

0.0

1.02.0

3.04.0

5.0

6.07.0

8.09.0

10.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

Kbit/s per TBF

Kbit/s per PDCH

Alc_EGPRS_DL_throughput

0.0

5.010.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

xx/xx

12/12

12/1

4

12/16

12/18

12/20

12/22

12/2

4

12/26

12/30

01/0

1

01/03

01/05

01/07

01/09

01/1

1

01/13

01/15

01/17

01/19

Kbit/s per TBF

Kbit/s per PDCH

Figure 22 : UL/DL EDGE Throughput

Both UL GPRS and EDGE throughput per TBF is around 8 kbps. This is dueto less data transfer on UL direction.

DL GPRS throughput per TBF is around 9 kbps. But DL EDGE throughputper TBF is around 27 kbps. EDGE throughput per tbf is about 3 times higher

than GPRS throughput.




23/35

5 BSS DIMENSIONING RESULT

5.1 EXTRA ABIS TS

Target: To estimate the number of Extra Abis Timeslots needed at BTSlevel.

Counters:

Measured Object: BTSGathering periods: 7-day Busy Hour data, recommendedInput :

Require extra&bonus abis traffic = Measure extra&bonus abis traffic / (1-Min (%TBF abis cong, 30%))

Measure extra&bonus abis traffic = P466/3600

% TBF abis cong = Max( %DL TBF abis cong, %UL TBF abis cong)%DL TBF abis cong = 100*P105i / (P91a + P91b + P91c + P91d + P91e +P91f)%UL TBF abis cong = 100*P105j / (P62a + P62b + P62c - P438c)pABIS = 99%

Nb of bonus Abis nibbles = Total number of BCCH and SDCCH in the BTS.

Output :

Number of required extra & bonus Abis nibbles = Erlang C (Requiredextra&bonus abis traffic, pABIS)

Number of required extra Abis nibbles = Number of required extra&bonusAbis nibbles Nb of bonus Abis nibbles

Number of required extra Abis TS = Number of required extra & bonus Abisnibbles / 4*

Remark: 1 Abis TS contains 4 Abis nibble




24/35

Result :

From above method & Minimum MSC-9 is requiring for each BTS, Using

counter data during 24-27 Dec 07. Dimensioning result for extra abis TSare list below.

Figure 23 : BSS Dimensioning , Extra Abis TS

For more detail, Number of Extra abis TS require for each BTS is in attachobject.

Require Extra AbisTS




25/35




26/35

5.2 GPU AND ATER MUX

AterMUX-PS dimensioning is based on 2 different kinds of traffic i.e.signaling & user traffic. After applying corresponding methods, each oftraffic may need a different number of AterMUX-PS links, and then the finalnumber of required AterMUX-PS link will be the maximum number.

GSL dimensioning method based on bandwidth (Signaling)

Target: To estimate the number of AterMUX-PS links needed per GPU/GP,according to signaling traffic.Counters:

Measured Object: LAPDGathering periods: 7-day Busy Hour data, recommendedMethodology:

Measure GSL Traffic = Max (p41,p42) / 28800**Note: 1 Erlang = [Gb TS speed (64Kbits/s) * 3600] / 8 =28800 K bytes.

GSL Capacity = 0.42 ErlangsGSL load = Measure GSL Traffic / GSL Capacity

GSL load on a given GPU/GP should not exceed 80% , At least two GSLs arerecommended to be defined per GPU/GP due to security reason.

GCH/AterMUX-PS Dimensioning

Target: To estimate the number of AterMUX-PS links needed per GPU/GP,

according to user traffic.Number of AterMUX-PS links per BSC = Number of required GCH per BSC /112 GCHNumber of AterMUX-PS links per GPU/GP (based on user traffic) = Numberof AterMUX-PS links per BSC / Number of required GPU/GP per BSC

Finally,Number of AterMUX-PS links per GPU/GP (on signaling + user traffic) =Max (Number of required GSL per GPU/GP, Number of AterMUX-PS links perGPU/GP based on user traffic, 2)




27/35

GPU/GP Dimensioning and AterMux PS dimensioning (user traffic)

Target: To estimate the number of GPU/GP needed per BSC.

Gathered Counters:

Measured Object: BSC

Gathering periods: 7-day Busy Hour data, recommended

Methodology:As the main input for the estimation of the number of GPU/GP boards isrepresented by the estimated number of needed GCHs (at BSC or GPU/GPlevel), before being able to apply the GPU/GP dimensioning process,another process for the assessment of the AterMux PS interface on thebasis of the target user traffic must be executed.




28/35

Input:Required GCH traffic = Measured GCH traffic / 1 Min (%GCH congestion,30%)

Measured GCH traffic = P100c / 3600%GCH congestion = Max {Ater congestion, GPU limitation} = Max{ %Ater_cong, %DSP_Cong, %DSP_load, %CPU_overload}

Where :%GCH_Ater_cong = P383a * 100 / 3600%GCH_DSP_cong = P384 *100 / 3600%DSP_load = Max(P201, P202) *100 / 3600%CPU_overload = P402 *100 / 3600

Output:

Number of required GCH = Erlang C (Required GCH traffic, pGPU/GP)pGPU/GP = 99.9%

Number of required GPU/GP = (Number of required GCH /GPU_GCH_Capacity) + GPU_for_MS_context_handling +GPU_for_Power_Limitation

GPU_GCH_Capacity the maximum number of GCHs that the GPU canhandle- 480 GCH (for legacy MFS)- 1560 GCH (for Mx MFS)

GPU_for_Ms_context_handling = 0 for software release afterB9MR1ed6QD2.

GPU_for_Power_Limitation- 0 for normal situation.- 1 if P402/3600 >0,1% and (max(P105e/P105f) > 1% OR GPU reboots observed

during the CPU loaded hours)




29/35

Result:From above method , Using counter data during 24-27 Dec 07.Dimensioning result for number of GPU and Ater MUX PS are list below.

Figure 24 : BSS Dimensioning , GPU and Ater Mux PS.




30/35

5.3 GB INTERFACE

Target: To estimate the number of Gb TS for each Gb link.

Gathered Counters:

Measured Object: GbGathering periods: 7-day Busy Hour data, recommended

Input:

Require Gb traffic = Measure Gb traffic + 15%MarginMeasure Gb traffic = Max(P45, P46) / 28800**Note : 1 Erlang = [Gb TS speed (64Kbits/s) * 3600] / 8 =28800 K bytes.pGb = 99.9%

Output:

Number of required Gb TS per link = Erlang C (Required_Gb_traffic, pGb)

Notes:- - Minimum 2 Gb links are required for one GPU/GP due to security reason- - Maximum 31 Gb TS (TS no. 1 to 31) can be configured per one Gb link. TS0- cannot be used as it is reserved for specific usages e.g. frame synchronization.- - In general, around 4 to 8 Gb TS are configured per one Gb link.




31/35

Result:From above method , Using counter data during 24-27 Dec 07.Dimensioning result for Gb timeslot for each GB link is list below.

Figure 25 : BSS Dimensioning , Gb timeslot MFS 501




32/35

Figure 26 : BSS Dimensioning , Gb timeslot MFS 502




33/35

6 CONCLUSION

EDGE performance on BCCH/TCH : EDGE throughput on BCCH is higherthan on TCH. The main reason is due to BCCH frequency is more cleancompare to TCH (NH/RH).

EDGE performance, Extra TS=0 with difference number of MAX_PDCH :With out extra timeslot. EDGE throughput can be increase by settingoptimize value of MAX_PDCH. This is the gain of B9 feature AutonomousPacket Resource Allocation.

GPRS vs. EDGE Performance :

- Ping : EDGE access time is faster than GPRS depend on packet size.- Web : EDGE use 60% of the time to preview web page compare to GPRS.- FTP : EDGE throughput is 200% faster compare to GPRS

GPRS & EDGE Qos statistic : Main Indicator remains stable after EDGEactivation. UL/DL TBF establishment success and normal release are stable.After EDGE activation EDGE traffic increase to 55% and GPRS trafficdecrease to 45%.

BSS Dimensioning : Result of BSS dimensioning is in chapter 5. Most

impacted part is number of extra abis TS. This is due to requirement ofVMS to allow MSC-9 for each BTS.




34/35

APPENDIX A: EDGE THROUGHPUT (INTERNAL FTP SERVER)

Objective: Assess EDGE performance in term of throughput using internalFTP server.



Test Procedure:- Set parameter using above value.- FTP file ftp://10.151.11.28/02.exe using nokia N80 (4+3)- Load for 5 iteration.

Test Result :

With internal FTP server , EDGE RLC throughput is stable and very close totheoretical throughput at MCS-9. Low throughout on the previous test ismainly due to internet effect & possible FTP server software/configuration.

Figure 27: EDGE RLC and Application Throughput (Internal FTP)




35/35

APPENDIX B: EDGE PARAMETER SETTING

Figure 28: EDGE Parameters setting

gb and gsl dimensioning edge trial report ed2.1 (vms)

Documents