Hello,
We are making improvements to speed up the ePMP interface. It will
not be in release 2.4, but will be in a release shortly thereafter.
Dan Sullivan
ePMP Software Manager
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:57 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant>
Exactly. There are too many web developers that just use a GUI to make
their sites and don't know anything about what is going on behind the
scenes. I realize that people expect more out of their sites than you
would probably want to hand code, but there needs to be a middle
ground. This is more in reference to the web in general than epmp.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, Vlad Sedov <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
lol..
shit code is mostly why we need gigabytes of RAM these days.
vlad
On 1/21/2015 9:42 AM, Jon Bruce wrote:
And we only need 64k of RAM.
On 1/21/2015 10:30 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
> You need big boy PCs to be on the Internet anymore
Who's fault is this? There are sites I don't visit anymore
because they've made them so bloated they won't run
(chicagotribune.com <http://chicagotribune.com>) They provide the
content, they should make sure they work for me, not the other way
around (Even though I realize that I am the eyeballs being sold)
Just think if the whole web was as neat as the packetflux
equipment is. You'd still only need 10mb interfaces on your servers.
On 1/21/2015 9:21 AM, Vlad Sedov wrote:
Oh, no doubt. I like my sea of tabs too.
But we're talking about a radio web interface. I don't care
how much RAM your PC has, using 10x more resources to display
the same stuff is a huge waste. Consider how many
lower-powered gadgets are used to manage radios.. It has to be
nimble.
Vlad
On 1/21/2015 9:17 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I routinely have over 8 gigs of RAM chewed up by my
browsers, sometimes almost 14 GB... You need big boy PCs
to be on the Internet anymore. ;-)
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Vlad Sedov" <[email protected]>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
*To: *[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:15:24 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum System Specs <rant>
I just did a quick memory usage test on our NMS box...
Firefox (google.com <http://google.com>): 76MB in RAM
Firefox with Canopy 450 AP interface open, logged in:
84.5MB.. a gain of less than 10MB of RAM usage.
Firefox with ePMP AP open, logged in: *170-185MB* in RAM.
over 100MB RAM usage, to display the same stuff. Why?
IE (google.com <http://google.com>): 64MB in RAM
IE with Canopy 450 AP interface open: 53MB (less than google!)
IE with ePMP AP interface open: *138MB*
Similar results with Chrome.. About 75MB difference.
eh.
vlad
On 1/21/2015 8:56 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
Not sure what it is, but in my case, the Machine did
make a difference in load time. Be interested in
others feedback as well. Do you see similar results?
Are my results bad? Do older/slower machines take longer?
On 1/21/2015 8:52 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>But Seriously, it's a web page displaying TEXT AND
NUMBERS, why should it need an i7 on the client
side for that?
No shit.
So you're saying it's clock speed? I've no idea
what my phone does but I would be kind of
surprised if the Galaxy S3 and my phone vary too
much in CPU (I think they're both 2013 products).
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Nate Burke
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
wrote:
Just to sorta provide some more data from the
original Thread, it seems that CPU Makes a huge
difference in how fast the pages load.� I ran a
test from the office to the same EPMP radio using
3 different machines.
On my 6 core I7 Desktop.� Initial web load takes
4-5 seconds.� And login takes another 4-5 seconds.
On an old Dualcore Xeon, it's 10 seconds for
initial load, and 10 seconds to login
On my atom netbook, it was 20 seconds for initial
Load, 10 seconds to login, and another 10 seconds
for the graph to display and all the red '!' marks
to disappear (they were on all left menu items)
I know people just said 'well just get a faster
laptop'.
But Seriously, it's a web page displaying TEXT AND
NUMBERS, why should it need an i7 on the client
side for that?
On 1/21/2015 8:34 AM, Vlad Sedov wrote:
Yes they did, and it was definitely for the
better. Most of the improvements were based on
some sort of real world feedback.. That's how
you make a good UI :D
vlad
On 1/21/2015 1:29 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
�
I do recall they did completely redesign
the interface, due to our request, after
the initial complaints of v1....� : /
�
----- Original Message -----
*From:*Vlad Sedov
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
*To:*[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
*Sent:*Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:15 AM
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] EPMP Minimum
System Specs <rant>
This has been one of our biggest
complaints from day one.
The interface, while it has gotten
slightly more usable, is still
complete garbage. It's unpredictable,
slow, and inconsistent.. Let alone
the features that just don't work.
Why on earth did they not just stick
with a field-tested, fast, usable
interface from the Canopy line? Nobody
buys a radio for it's slide-out
menus and pretty HTML5 crap.
We need, fast, intuitive, consistent..
Forget the shiny.
grr
Vlad
On 1/20/2015 10:57 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
> Ok, Cambium, this is a little
sad.� My Field Laptop, a Lenovo S10-3t,
> Atom Processor with Windows 8.1
cannot load the EPMP WEB Pages in a
> timely manner.� We're talking
40-60 seconds for initial load, and
> 20-30 seconds per screen
refresh/menu change.� Since I'm
going to have
> to go to the boss, and tell him that
I need a new laptop to do any
> field troubleshooting for these new
radios, what are the minimum
> system specs for a machine to view
the EPMP Screens?� Unless Cambium
> is going to get their Web interface
under control as of Yesterday.
>
> They still swear that the GUI was
all developed in house and not
> purchased (something I still can't
believe).� I'd like to know who the
> engineers/managers are who signed
off on that design.� I can only
> imaging that there was a group of
guys sitting around the conference
> table, watching the presentation on
the GUI on the projector up front,
> all nodding their heads in
agreement, "I think this is a wonderful
> layout, the field tech's won't mind
waiting a couple extra minutes for
> the pages to load so they can look
this pretty!!"
>
> I think that Cambium should step up
and get engineers from ALL aspects
> of product development out into the
field.� 40 seconds waiting for the
> page to load is fine when you're
sitting in the office, but not when
> you have the laptop balanced on a
stack of firewood in the freezing
> rain trying to get to the monitoring
page to see why a radio isn't
> linking up.� I think that every
WISP on this list would be more than
> happy to host an engineer for a day.
Heck, even if they go into the
> parking lot and assemble it on the
tailgate of someone's Pickup,
> they'll get some idea of what we
experience.
>
> I have a feeling that if all steps
of the Dev process took a week in
> the field, We'd have a radio that
had a GUI that responded instantly
> on any device, and radios that
assembled and mounted (and unmounted)
> with 1 gloved hand.
>
> </rant>
> Nate
