Yes... this isn't airmax we're talking about... I haven't heard of any problems related to the number of SM's with ePMP. You're obviously going to run out of capacity if you have too many, but I imagine if they were all low use connections it'd handle 120 just fine.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > Right....IMO the number of subscribers the thing can efficiently handle is > basically irrelevant because you'll run out of capacity before you hit that > number. That's probably true with a lot of stuff these days. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Josh Baird" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: 1/5/2017 2:08:32 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison > > We have ePMP AP's with 55 subs that are doing just fine. Probably won't > load any more on it due to high downlink utilization during peak usage. > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Over 20-30 subs not recommended by whom? >> >> When I talked to Cambium about subscriber density, they said they've >> tested with up to 120, but suggested keeping it under 65. I do have an >> ePMP AP with 43 SM's at this point, no trouble that I'm aware of. It hits >> abou 60% air utilization at peak times. >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Trey Scarborough" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: 1/5/2017 9:21:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >> >> Your biggest difference is your throughput per MHZ your epmp will do less >>> bandwidth in a 20mhz channel than a 450. he other big difference is >>> subscriber density. It is not recommended to go over 20-30 subs per AP on >>> epmp without loss of performance. I regularly see 450 APs with 70+ subs per >>> AP. With Medusa I have seen over 130. As far as the Medusa not being field >>> proven you may not have field tested it yet, but I know for a fact it has >>> been tested and running on networks for some time now and a viable solution. >>> >>> If you have any more questions feel free to hit me up off list. >>> >>> On 1/5/2017 7:36 AM, David Milholen wrote: >>> >>>> The radios on these 2 are entirely different. One is using std based >>>> radio and the other completely proprietary. >>>> >>>> Since framing will be slightly different and so will processing delay. >>>> The stds based radio gets close to mimicking the >>>> >>>> 450 series but thats strictly based on Cambium magic. Capacity and >>>> sustained rates per VC is the where you will see a difference. >>>> >>>> Latency will be very consistent from ap to sub. PMP450i is where its at. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/4/2017 2:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: >>>> >>>>> if im running 75/25, epmp is roughly 87mb capacity, 450 93mb capacity >>>>> is this correct? >>>>> >>>>> are efficiencies batter on 450 if installation is the same? ie, if I >>>>> forlifted one AP with 17 epmps to 450, where would my gains be >>>>> assuming everything stays installed in the same spot. Its not like the >>>>> FCC gives 450 any more power than epmp, so path loss should be the >>>>> same. >>>>> Im looking at this epmp 1000 sector thats running overall about 64-7% >>>>> efficient with 17 subscribers and wondering what the gain is to move >>>>> to 450 (exclude medusa, as its not field proven) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
