I realy would not dare to do this with ePMP. Guess scrolling thru 120 entries with the webinterface will kill the AP ;-)).
Von: Af [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Mathew Howard Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 20:27 An: af <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[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. --
