Spiffy! I always wondered about that... On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Dan Sullivan < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > > > ePMP provides Air Fairness. Each SM is allocated an amount of time. If > an SM is performing at a poor MCS, then its throughput suffers because > additional time is not allocated. The other SMs get their time allocated > time and do not have their time taken away at the expense of a poorly > performing SM. > > > > Dan Sullivan > > ePMP > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:09 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 5ghz issues > > > > If someone did make that claim then it was probably a > misunderstanding....The effect is a function of the medium and no product > can avoid it. > > It's possible they reduce the effect by allocating less airtime to the > weak CPE. Basically make the slow one slower rather than making everybody > slower. *IF* they do, that's not a unique feature to the ePMP. > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: 11/21/2016 10:33:42 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 5ghz issues > > > > I dont know how they can make that claim when their "flagship" 450 product > will suffer from decreased capacity when SM's with weak signals connect to > it and pass traffic. Same thing with LTE. Burns up more airtime so why > would EPMP be better than all the expensive gear? Doesnt make sense. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > > Wavelinc Communications > > P.O. Box 126 > > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > > http://www.wavelinc.com > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wavelinc.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cdaniel.sullivan%40cambiumnetworks.com%7C92e61d550557469517a808d412e987a2%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C1&sdata=zWbtXstzzu5o039f3XRx1Wu%2F24g4TSZG8SuU42cnWjQ%3D&reserved=0> > > tel. 419-562-6405 > > fax. 419-617-0110 > > > On Nov 21, 2016, at 9:48 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > It is my understanding a poor receive on one SM will not hurt performance > of the other SMs... > > ( i could be wrong but am pretty sure i read this on the forums ) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Timothy Steele <[email protected]> > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2016 8:38 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 5ghz issues > > > > Sounds like major interference or you are installing right under the tower > without giving the SM installs uptilt > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 9:03 PM Josh Corson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We are having some issues with a epmp 2000 AP. > > At first there was an install on a customers private tower to get > service. I noticed the MCS downlink and uplink were sitting around MCS > 1 with 80% or so of packets. So it affected all other customers on the > AP and brought those other customers into 20% MCS 1 levels. Now his SM > has been raised and signals are great, -60dBm, SNR of 37dB, MCS 13/15. > The SM is also operating at mostly MCS 14-15 with only 1% in MCS 1. > I changed the management to be MCS 0 to attempt to help with the > minimal connection to MCS 1 so it will be allowed to pass traffic at > that rate. > > However, this customer still has issues where the internet > connectivity is random. Sometimes it just completely drops when you > put traffic to it, but when it is on, speed tests of 37 Mbps down and > 12 upload. > > All other customers are still on MCS 1 with levels ranging from 7% to > 20%. I can assume they are having the same trouble as the customer > listed above. > > All software is 3.1 > > My question is, what is the issue? This SM shows nothing but good > results, yet connectivity is poor at best, and all other customers are > still having issues. I even disconnected the SM that caused customers > to have problems and they were still modulating at the 7-20% MCS 1 > level. Tried changing channels, etc. but still no results. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Josh > >
