It's mainly JS (client side) that makes the GUI so dreadful. But, I think it's improved greatly in 3.x.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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. > > > -- > > > > > > > > >
