@McLovin Indeed...sorry but there's no other possible solution crossing my mind right now...could be due to detachable antennas spec? Are these definitely for use in the 2.4Ghz band? I've sucrssfully used CPE210s in the past as temporary solutions for large indoors coverage with no issues whatsoever, so this is puzzling to say the least..

@McLovin,

first you run the WBS in Test Mode. Don't do that, it's illegal in Germany!

Second, you limit WiFi throughput to MCS7 / 72.2 Mbps in your second test. Why? There is no reason to not use MCS15 / 144.4 Mbps (@20 MHz channel width).

According to frequency analysis the old WR841ND (or another AP) seems to cover 40 MHz channel width with mid frequency 2432 MHz = channel 5. This signal interferes with channels 1 to 9.

QoS setting isn't needed, just WMM is enough for 802.11n-only mode. WMM is usually grayed out if 802.11n-only is selected.

I did set up a testbed with a WBS210 and two TL-ANT2408CL. Settings like yours except for MCS index and region settings.

Antenna gain is 8dBi, so I did set Tx power to 12 dBm, yielding 20 dBm in total.

Antennas straight up vertical, parallel to each other (since I use a laptop as client, too lazy to set up CPEs for the test).

All other APs are always using 20 MHz, not 40 MHz channel width.

Throughput is as expected from this setting, measured with iperf (right-click and open image in new tab to enlarge):

If I set 20/40 MHz channel bandwidth, I get following results (still other APs around):

Latency is a bit high in your test, but not unusual if two or more APs compete for AirTime. I get following ping times when other APs are almost idle:

$ ping 192.168.1.107
PING 192.168.1.107 (192.168.1.107): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.737 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.862 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.895 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.931 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=3.323 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=9.872 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=6.025 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=32.555 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=17.752 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=3.333 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=23.035 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=3.552 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=3.074 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=13.955 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=3.158 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=2.925 ms
[...]

64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=3.527 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=32 ttl=64 time=4.697 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=33 ttl=64 time=10.665 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.107 ping statistics ---
34 packets transmitted, 34 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.737/7.833/32.555/7.244 ms
$

If other APs are under load, latency increases:

$ ping 192.168.1.107
PING 192.168.1.107 (192.168.1.107): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=7.282 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.974 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.483 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=3.200 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=9.318 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=38.660 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.210 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=3.184 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=19.868 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=3.182 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=8.620 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=36.021 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=2.446 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=3.059 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=6.178 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=2.505 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.107: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=3.187 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.107 ping statistics ---
17 packets transmitted, 17 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.446/9.140/38.660/11.132 ms
$

This is normal due to reduced AirTime for the client used to test latency. It does affect throughput as well, but you can't do much against this, except using other channels (ch1 or ch13 peferably).

You can also try to reduce collisions by using MAXtream, but you have to weight it up whether MAXtream gives a better throughput compared to standard CSMA/CA.

But why do you use SOHO omni antennas if you could use a TL-ANT2410MO, which has beend specially designed for WBS210?

MCS7 was proposed to limit spatial streams down to a single one so as to perhaps narrow down the cause of the aforementioned issue. It didn't seem to pay any dividents. On the MIMO antenna I'd say it's a bit of an overkill maybe for an appartment testbed deployment? I'd be willing to test out my CPE210 on a similar setup, but any such event won't happen for at least another couple of days so I don't know if you're willing to wait up or perhaps take @R1D2's approach whoch suggests that it may be due to interference from the other AP you're using next to it. My suggestion: Give it another try by using 20mhz channels on both units, one on channel 1, the other on the opposite side of the spectrum so as to facilitate the less inteference possible and see how this goes. It SHOULD be solid...

Enforcing MAXtream I'm afraid is no solution since then only TP-Link CPE/WBS would be able to conmect to it, so it kinda defeats the purpose of setting this up on the first place ;)

@RTouris, MCS7 does not help, it rather tightens the allocation of AirTime IMO.

At first I was confused by the spectrum analysis until I saw that it's covering 2312 MHz to 2752 MHz due to Test mode. But channel 1 is 2412 MHz, so it falls into the 40 MHz allocation of the device on channel 5:

This is how the spectrum analysis looks if the WBS region is set to Germany. It shows interferences here during my test, so the WBS did use channel 3 (selected automatically):

As for my comment about CPEs and MAXtream, please ignore it. I didn't get at first what McLovin wants to actually achieve with the setup of a WBS210, really for home use only? Or just testing at home for later deployment elsewhere? Somehow I thought he wanted to feed two or more CPEs from a quick look to the pictures (sorry, my fault).

I would suggest to not fiddle with WBS/CPEs for home use. If one wants to cover a small area outdoors, a WBS with omni antennas might be nice, but nowadays EAP225-Outdoor is the first choice for this use case. It can even be used indoors and performs better then a WBS210 could, albeit for indoor use I would prefer an EAP225 (Indoor) which can be mounted on the ceiling. For long-range directional links WBS are still pretty good, albeit a bit out-of-date.

Don't get me wrong: I still like the firmware of WBS, but if you don't need such details it offers, do yourself a favour and get an EAP.

I tested TL-ANT2410MO long time ago for supplying WLAN to my neighbors and it had a really great coverage, but replaced it since them by an EAP225-Outdoor which uses available AirTime much more efficiently due to its higher throughput in the 5 GHz band. For 2.4 GHz only I would prefer a WBS with TL-ANT2410MO outdoors, but would not recommend consumer antennas from other APs nor even TL-ANT2408CL.

But, McLovin, if you want to use omni antennas with a WBS anyway, I have a pair of TL-ANT2408CL for you. I ship to Germany. 

100% brand-new and unused, except for a test. Comes in original packaging.

Seriously, I have no use for them anymore and I even have plenty of similar sized 7dBi high-gain antennas from Linksys laying around here.

McLovin wrote

About illegal, I'm testing devices, so its a test situation.

I dont like discussions on this level, so please, 'let the church in the village' (German: lass die Kirche im Dorf) hahaha

Musst Du selbst wissen; ich kenne zwei Fälle, bei denen die BNetzA Geldbußen verhängt und sämtliches WLAN-Equipment beschlagnahmt hat. Die Behörden suchen aktiv nach Netzstörungen. Aber darum geht's nicht: Durch den Test-Mode waren Deine Schlussfolgerungen der Interferenzen in der Spektralanalyse falsch.

@McLovin, siehe private Nachricht.