Aaron said they were looking at it, but it wouldn't make it into 14.2. I'm hoping for 15.x.

On 11/22/2016 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

That sounds familiar, did someone from Cambium post awhile back that they were already looking at it? Or am I just experiencing déjà vu?

*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 5:21 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 5ghz issues

Dear Canopy guys, go talk to the ePMP guys. Please.

On 11/22/2016 5:10 PM, Dan Sullivan 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] <mailto:[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]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>

    To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>

                *To:*[email protected] <mailto:[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]
                <mailto:[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


Reply via email to