GUI improved in 3.2 I think
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Josh Baird <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
