Thanks for the response! This level is a bit beyond where I normally work. Followup comments in line:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Tom Tsou <tom@tsou.cc> wrote:

On Jan 9, 2014 3:26 PM, "Kurtis Heimerl" <kheimerl@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> With the RAD1, the system is beaconing correctly. However, phones are unable to camp. I logged a phone trying to camp on both the RAD1 and a B100 to compare the output and see if anything jumps out. The osmoBTS/osmo-nitb logs are seemingly identical, but the transceiver outputs are different.

By beaconing correctly, you mean the handset recognize the network?

Yep. When doing a scan it correctly identifies the new network.

Based on these logs, you're not receiving RACH bursts.

What makes you say that? I don't see RACHs in either log, but the phone camps in the 52M trace so it must have received a RACH. I do see attempts to decode a RACH in the RAD1 trace though...

Both of the transceiver outputs are attached. The only big difference I see is in the "underflows" on the RAD1, which in my experience is a deal-breaker; that's not usually an easy fix.

This is unrelated to osmo-bts. The effect on performance will depend on the frequency of occurrence.

My thought was that osmo-bts may not be producing enough packets (or something) causing it to underflow. Am I off base there?

-TT