We have about 50 -60 subs per with about 300+ on a tower with 6 APs.
We noticed frame utilization was being a bear so we added 2 Aps to make up
for the congestion which has worked for now but we may be able to squeeze
some more by changing our framing to 80/20 on DL usage.
That will have to be a Network wide change because if one tower can
see a glimpse of
the signal edges from the other towers it would cause interference with
both towers.
Since we have only 4 channels to use in 3.65 with 10mhz wide use it make
the cambium
450 a step above the rest.
On 11/09/2015 09:45 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Me too. But a heavy loaded tower is 100 people.
I'm sure there are operators pushing 100 subs on a single 450 AP...
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Nov 9, 2015 10:43 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Too expensive for me... considering the alternatives.
But yeah, that's true. A lot of operators are using it and making
money... it certainly has it's place. We'll likely even be putting
up more PMP450 in 900mhz and 3.65ghz in the future, since there
really aren't cheaper alternatives there (UBNT 900mhz and 3.65ghz
doesn't count...).
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Josh Luthman
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Define too expensive...
If operators can buy it, sell a service and be profitable than
I don't think it's too expensive.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Nov 9, 2015 10:25 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I can't disagree that PMP450 is too expensive, but slow?
...compared to what? and what is less buggy than ePMP,
other than PMP450?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Josh Luthman
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
like nearly everything from
Cambium..it is too expensive and soo low
Bandwith for the customers.
Too expensive or slow :P
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Nov 9, 2015 9:44 AM, "Adam Moffett"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
He didn't say ePMP was too expensive, he said it
had too many bugs.
On 11/9/2015 9:40 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Dude he thinks EPMP is way too expensive. Doesn't
read like a very rational post to me.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Nov 9, 2015 9:35 AM, "Sean Heskett"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You must be doing something wrong because our
experience is the complete opposite with PMP450.
What does your noise floor look like?
-Sean
On Sunday, November 8, 2015, Daniel Gerlach
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
the 450 is a 4 years old pointless
product like nearly everything from
Cambium..it is too expensive and soo low
Bandwith for the customers.We
have thrown it out of the Network..The
epmp serie has only bugs( we
have found last week a new with heavy
traffic and more than 35 CPE´s
on a AP) and Cambium told me that they
can not fix it before
Christmas.
2015-11-08 4:21 GMT+01:00 Eric Kuhnke
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
> Same on any half duplex TDD platform
with PtMP and low modulation (QPSK)
> subscribers. If you have a ubnt 5 GHz
AP with a bunch of clients in 64QAM
> 3/4 to 64QAM 5/6 and a few are on the
air using QPSK 1/2, it's going to drag
> down the performance of that whole
radio and sector significantly. It can be
> as much as from 80 Mbps aggregate to 20
Mbps. Looking at the RSL thresholds
> needed to operate at 1X in 450 terms,
it sounds like a few of those client
> radios are "just barely hanging on"...
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:37 AM, George
Skorup <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> If those 1X and 2X downlink SMs are
even moderately active, that really
>> throws a wrench into the sector
performance. This is true on any PMP
>> platform. We've seen our fair share of
it. We've moved a couple back to FSK
>> which is something I never, ever want
to do, but it was unfortunately
>> necessary.
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2015 11:50 AM, Eric Muehleisen
wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
