We have moved from the CTM2 to using Netonix switches. with pairs swapped for polarity, and the syncbox 12 or Parasitic on each AP as a backup to the built in sync on the 450s. On that note, people have had issues with the built in sync on the 450s, but at sites where we have installed 450s without backup sync, we haven't had any issues with losing timing.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Josh Baird <[email protected]> wrote: > How much is a rackmount CMM4 these days? > > Do you have to provide both 24V and 48V if you want to power each, or does > it have internal DC-DC converters? > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 for Adam and David. We have a blend of CMM4 and CTM2's. My plant techs >> love the CTM2's because of their simplicity and design. However, our CMM4's >> just work. Never have blown ports. CTM2's are prone to port failure and >> have management issues. >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:43 AM, David <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I only moved from CTM2 to CMM4 rackmount stuff only because of price. >>> CTM2 does have all the good stuff a cmm4 only wishes it had but as far >>> as protection both are equal. I have both in the field and have steadily >>> replaced most if not all CTM1's with CMM4 due to CRC and some port failures >>> after storms. >>> I want my CMM(5) or the NEW CMM from cambium with magic sauce to use >>> with GIGE .. oh yeah must be Rackmount and have some cool new features for >>> monitoring.. just sayin. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/20/2015 08:53 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: >>> >>> When I lived in Canopy land, I liked the Sync Injectors for the small >>> form factor and low power. Great for little bitty installs. >>> >>> We never lost a port on a CMM4, ever. We did blow up a few sync >>> injectors during thunderstorms. So if you don't want to worry about it, >>> get the CMM4.....maybe your vendor will put the popcorn inside for you. >>> >>> >>> On 10/20/2015 2:26 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: >>> >>> We have been deploying the packetflux stuff as primary sync solution. >>> Other than the little bugginess with it, I'm very satisfied. >>> >>> We have a CTM that I think we paid 1700 bucks for, the night we deployed >>> it, we took a lightning strike and lost a port, so we have an AP >>> independently powered and synced from a parasitic. To clean it up, we have >>> to buy a whole new CTM, whereas with packetflux we would probably have only >>> needed to buy a syncinjector. >>> >>> We have a couple CMM Micros that have been tooling along for years >>> without issues, but I think we originally paid like 2 grand for those too. >>> >>> We have one deployed CMM4 and one on the shelf, handy because theyre >>> outdoor and have the switch built in, but that massive power supply makes >>> me want to take a dump on my cat, and I think their pricetag at the time >>> was like 2400 bucks, same issue with CTM, lose a port replace the whole >>> thing. Want to move up to a gigabit radio, buy a whole new unit. >>> >>> Little things like losing the module order, weird ways of firmware >>> upgrades and 10mb management, and no good way to monitor certain things in >>> Powercode don't really justify the cost of the other two solutions. The >>> popcorn is a selling point to, cambium doesn't give you shit. The >>> outstanding responsiveness to support requests and openness of the >>> manufacturer with packetflux is a selling point for me too. >>> >>> Am I missing anything that should be coming into the decision making >>> process here? The boss would be willing to shell out the cash for the >>> CTM/CMMs but that eats a boatload of budget. And it does require a certain >>> attention to detail to manage the packetflux gear, so if I were to exit, >>> would it be as simple as a fully managed solution for my replacement. >>> >>> Anybody here turn away from the packetflux solution for either of the >>> other two? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
