+1 that's what we have done/are doing. -Sean
On Friday, November 6, 2015, Lewis Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > We overbuilt our FSK with 450 and migrated only the highest users or > business customers and had excellent results. > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015, 1:30 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> Ripping and replacing a FSK with a 450 is generally not going to go well >> unless you are absolutely certain your customers are going to modulate at >> the highest rate. >> >> A better scenario if you can manage it is to hang the 450 alongside the >> FSK and then only move the heavy customers with strong signals. >> On Nov 6, 2015 12:21 PM, "Eric Muehleisen" <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> Tyson, >>> 1. We are using Cambium stock 65* dualslant antennas. >>> 2. Mix of routers. We have a BYOR (bring your own router) policy. >>> 3. All AP's are sync'd with either CMM4 or CTM2. >>> >>> Adam, >>> We will certainly focus more attention on those SM's that have poor >>> modulation. It wouldn't surprise me if the most active SM's are the >>> ones stuck at 1x or 2x. >>> >>> George, >>> We have not considered downgrading. Our entire network has been >>> upgraded to 13.4. That over 500 SM's at this point. I'm a little >>> nervous about downgrading. >>> >>> The reality here is that upgrading a FSK sector to 450 gets us only a >>> little over double the capacity. FSK aggregates around 13mb/s and >>> around 27mb/s aggregate for the 450. This is quite disappointing. It >>> appears that we must now be very selective over what SM's can >>> register. A nearly impossible task in our situation. Use caution if >>> you plan on ripping and replacing your old FSK. You will not yield the >>> kind of throughput you'd expect. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Tyson Burris @ Internet >>> Communications Inc <[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>> >> > Eric, >>> > >>> > Thanks for bringing this up. We recently started deploying about 30 >>> 450 AP's. Our testing in the field and with customers is producing the >>> same EXACT problem you just reported. >>> > >>> > More importantly, we see this problem on AP's with low SM's to high SM >>> ranges (5-45). Same firmware. >>> > >>> > Let's compare some notes: >>> > >>> > 1. What antennas are you using? >>> > 2. What routers / OS are you using? >>> > 3. What sync source are you using? >>> > >>> > We see high frame uses even on the AP's with low SM's and great >>> modulation rates. >>> > I can understand if a large number of SM's have low modulation it will >>> eat up frames, but the outcome is the same on low and high SM counts. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Tyson Burris, President >>> > Internet Communications Inc. >>> > 739 Commerce Dr. >>> > Franklin, IN 46131 >>> > >>> > 317-738-0320 Daytime # >>> > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # >>> > Online: www.surfici.net >>> > >>> > >>> > What can ICI do for you? >>> > >>> > Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - >>> IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. >>> > >>> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the >>> > addressee shown. It contains information that is >>> > confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, >>> > dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by >>> > unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly >>> > prohibited. >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>] On Behalf Of >>> Eric Muehleisen >>> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 12:51 PM >>> > To: [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 450 frame utilization and performance issues >>> > >>> > We have a few 450 AP's with 30-40 subscribers and have been getting >>> several slow speed complaints lately. I just chaulked it up to issues with >>> the SM since the AP rarely got over 20mb/s downlink. We upgraded to 13.4 >>> recently so we could watch our frame utilization. We started graphing it >>> over night and as you can see, we are hitting 100% for sustained periods of >>> time. During that time the AP is only doing approx. 23mb/s. This particular >>> AP has 34 registered SM and the majority show 6x and 4x with 4 or 5 SM's at >>> 2x and 1x. The performance is a major disappointment. Anyone else have >>> similar experiences? >>> > >>> > AP configuration: 20mhz channels, 2.5ms frame, 10 miles, 75% downlink, >>> > 3 contention slots. >>> > >>> > Attached is a screenshot of the utilization and sector throughput >>> calculator from the Capacity Planner R13. >>> > >>> >>
