Yeah, but I haven't had to colo it with a PMP100 so at the time I
glossed over it.
I was wondering if I was missing out on lower latency.....sounds like
that's a yes.
On 12/5/2015 10:22 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
wasnt 2.5 frames announced some time ago?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Josh Luthman
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Like 80% sure I'm right but ya latency is the most important.
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 Dec 4, 2015 7:47 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Isn't throughput supposed to be slightly worse with 2.5ms, or
am I remembering that wrong? There is definitely a big
improvement in latency.
Either way, I don't think the difference in throughput is
enough to care about, I'd rather have the lower latency.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Josh Luthman
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
A bit more throughput. Not worth changing from 5ms to
2.5ms if all you're after is throughput. Any new APs I do
2.5ms instead of 5ms since there's no reason to do it "the
old way". You do get better latency - 7.5ms improvement.
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 Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's a big day for ePMP threads.
If I recall correctly, the 2.5ms frame size was
introduced to aid in collocation with the PMP100. Is
there any performance impact? My first thought was
that a shorter frame would give me lower latency, but
it's probably not that simple.
