its in the gui, so just hire some kid to log in every ten minutes and write it down :-)
so the jist is, if its not a nasty rf environment, then really the 450 alone is no better than the epmp with only 6mb more capacity for 4x the cost, but if medusa field proves then it could be a better solution? (i dont consider beta proven, too many burns by fanboys and marketing edited testimonials...320 ABAB anyone?) On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Josh Baird <[email protected]> wrote: > Did they finally expose downlink utilization as a percentage over SNMP? > Or.. are you doing some calculations? > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> mbps and DL airtime utilization for the same time period on an AP with 43 >> SM's. >> The base package is 6x2, 10% of them bought something faster. >> >> This is a seasonal low point....it might do more in the summer. >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: 1/5/2017 2:24:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >> >> What kind of rate packages do you sell with this kind of loading? >> What happens during netflix hour. >> >> *From:* Josh Baird >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 05, 2017 12:08 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- 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.
