I would say use the Force 110 PTP radio as your AP, but you mention 2.4 GHz and the Force 110 PTP isn't in 2.4.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Gray" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:55:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UBNT vs ePMP Signal Strength? These links are both using non-GPS radios. Actually, I don't have any ePMP GPS sync radios at this time.. and have had really good results. I'm in a low density / low noise area, so it is hard to justify the cost of the GPS radios. I'm hoping for a "lite" 2.4 GHz sync radio, but I understand it would not be coming soon. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < [email protected] > wrote: What you are seeing (improvements) is a combination of a better radio (epmp) and the effect of GPS sync radios in a low to mild interference environment.. You will see such improvements thruout.. unless you run into heavy interference or another GPS radio (out of sync) operating on that channel. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] <blockquote> From: "Christopher Gray" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:34:14 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UBNT vs ePMP Signal Strength? <blockquote> These are both NLOS links [which ePMP appears to handle better]. The throughput increase may not have been as great if the links were LOS. On the link I switched today, I was averaging around 7.5 Mbps one-way with the Rocket M2 right before switching. After switching to ePMP, one-way tests were averaging about 13.5 Mbps. This is on a clean 5 MHz channel with several trees in the way. The power is turned up all the way (25 dBm minus 1 dB cable loss for the 24 dBi dish, and 27 dBm minus 1 dB cable loss for the 18 dBi dish). If I setup the weaker link with ePMP to start, I would have seen -80 dBm and told the customer I would not do it. Even at -72 dBm with the Rockets I was hesitant. The ePMP links have been stable even through some heavy rain (throughput dropped to about 11.5 Mbps on the weak link). I'm going to try it for a while and keep my Rockets ready. At this point, I'm assuming the ePMP 2.4 GHz RSSI calculations are artificially low. -Chris On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Brian Sullivan < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> I am not sure why the signals would read differently, but i'm curious how you arrived at the 60 to 70% throughput increase. Other than the ability to sync, I thought the main difference between UBNT's M series and ePMP was the user interface?? On 9/10/2015 2:06 PM, Christopher Gray wrote: <blockquote> I just changed two low bandwidth 5 MHz width PTP links from Rocket M2 radios to ePMP 2.4 GHz non-sync radios. The "signal strength" is about 10 dB lower with the ePMP radios. Do they use a different mechanism to calculate signal strength? Link 1: * 2x Rocket Dish RD-2G24 * Antennas were not re-aimed when switching radios * Radio outputs are maximized on both systems to FCC PTP limits * UBNT signal read -62 dBm Tx / -61 dBm Rx * ePMP singal reads -72 dBm Tx / -70 dBm Rx Link 2: * 1x Rocket Dish RD-2G24 * 1x L-Com DPD 18 dBi Dish * Antennas were not re-aimed when switching radios * Radio outputs are maximized on both systems to FCC PTP limits * UBNT signal read -70 dBm Tx / -72 dBm Rx * ePMP singal reads -80 dBm Tx / -82 dBm Rx Both links were stable, and both links appear stable now. Both ePMP links have 60-70% more throughput. Do I just need to adjust my mental meter 10 db? Are the new signals actually as concerning as they feel? Thanks - Chris </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
