We have it on our sectors -----Original Message----- From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> Sent: 12/5/2015 9:39 AM To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2.5ms frame
It became available with software v2.5 if that's what you're asking. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Gino Villarini <ginovi...@gmail.com> wrote: wasnt 2.5 frames announced some time ago? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: Like 80% sure I'm right but ya latency is the most important. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 4, 2015 7:47 PM, "Mathew Howard" <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> 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 Direct: 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> 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.
