I have been talking about this model for 3 or 4 years now, literally ever since the horns went into testing.
It seems so simple, but between their beamwith and isolation and the newer radio designs it just makes sense - as long as you can find ways to wheel and deal for the required real estate. On Jul 22, 2017 11:38 PM, "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> wrote: > RF Element antennas have completely changed that equation. Because of the > cost of newer APs, you can use more APs at a lower cost which shares the > capacity across more APs. This allows up to 150Mbps per customer if you > are using Mimosa A5cs for example. > > I have a site where we have 7 Prism APs on the building and could easily > deliver 100Mbps to customers with Prisms and RF Element antennas. We have > tested speeds up to 195Mbps with some customers as a demonstration just for > bragging rights against competitors. With 40MHz channels, I’ve got > capacity of 200Mbps or more on each of the APs now with 40MHz channels. > You could do the same thing with Mimosa A5cs also and get MU-MIMO along > with it. Because of the low-cost of the APs versus the 450, you can deploy > far more of them and the processors in them are much faster. In addition, > they also support 50-80MHz channels have GPS, Polling, and TDMA protocols. > > > The 450 is a great product and I plan on deploying some 900Mhz units soon > but with new equipment from Ubiquiti and Mimosa, don’t think it’s the only > game in town any longer by any stretch. > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds > *Sent:* Friday, July 21, 2017 3:26 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > > Micro. Pops. > > > > That's where the distributed low cost APs make sense (where you can of > course). > > > > On Jul 21, 2017 4:02 PM, "Joe Falaschi" <[email protected]> wrote: > > What Chris said. > > > > Our 450Ms have been a huge game changer for us. We have a tower with 300 > people on it, pretty much all on one side (180 degrees is busy and the > other 180 degrees is pretty silent). In the past we’d add an AP to offload > capacity and that AP was used up day one. There just wasn’t a path to > catch up with demand much less start to offer faster speeds. If there is > any kind of density, greater than 100+ clients on the tower, I’m not sure > how you use anything other than 450m at this point. > > > > Joe > > > > > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ePMP might make sense to build in a new area, but when you have 100+ > clients in a single 90 degree sector, replacing your triple-stacked PMP450 > APs with a single 450M, saving 40MHz of spectrum, offering faster speeds, > AND not having to swap 100+ radios feels mighty nice. > > > > Chris Wright > > Network Administrator > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:58 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > > I've had ePMP's do some weird things here and there, like refusing to > reboot or accept config changes. Nothing a power cycle didn't fix. > > I've had to power cycle a PMP100 or 450 to fix a problem approximately > zero times. > > > > I know a neighbor who had a tower hit by lightning an ePMP and a Ubiquiti > Rocket died while the PMP100 and 430 stuff kept on chugging (he didn't have > 450 there yet). > > > > 450 has a few management conveniences like remote spectrum analyzer, RF > private IP, and SM proxy access via AP. > > > > So overall my experiences say the 450 is better than the ePMP, but I still > use a lot of ePMP for all the reasons others have stated. ePMP is good > bang for the buck. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> > > To: "af" <[email protected]> > > Sent: 7/18/2017 10:23:17 AM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > > It seems to me (as someone who hasn't actually used PMP450 to speak of, > other than 900mhz), that PMP450 has some advantages for high density > deployments... particularly if you're talking 450m, or even the ability to > easily upgrade to 450m. But in a network like ours, where the average SMs > per AP is somewhere around 15, I just can't see any way that it could > possibly be worth going with 450 over ePMP. > > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > > The PMP450M can make ~~ 12° sectors. On a busy tower, and surrounded by > noisy neighbors, we're often seeing 30 dBm SNR. Nothing else comes close. > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > > On 7/17/2017 10:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > Serious question, not my usual sarcasm, how are you 450 folks justifying > the substantial proce difference between 450 and epmp, seriously, if you > dont freeze in the winter, i couldnt justify it. Granted we dont sellbover > 12\2 and we dont have more than 40 per ap, i just dont see the value, they > did too good a job on epmp > > > > On Jul 3, 2017 12:10 PM, "Craig Schmaderer" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I have never seen more than around 55mbps on 450sm in bridge mode with any > firmware. Maybe I missed a 14.x that it did, but I haven't seen more than > 55mbps on any 15.x firmware. I am working on a bug with then on 15.1 where > it looks like the qos speed limiters are not enforcing speed settings. I > have never tried a 450i sm but I would assume those work fine, I have many > 450i PTP that work great. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Kurt Fankhauser < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 3, 2017 8:38:49 AM > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > > The original 450 hardware will max out at around 70mbps TCP. Even if you > have no traffic on it that is the limitation. I don't remember which > firmware it was but the 14.0 something sounds right and I have personally > gotten the 70mbps to a SM on a AP with 3 clients. > > > > Now the 450i AP basically the 70mbps cap is gone and you can get whatever > the link tests show (as long as your testing to an 450i SM). I > have two customers with 450i SM on a 450i AP and have seen well over > 125mbps TCP easy. Now that same AP talking to older 450SM's those SM's can > still only get 70mbps max. > > > > So basically what you need to do is put the 450i AP up where you need to > total AP capacity of more than 50-60mbps and then only use the 450i SM on > the clients that need more than the 50-70mbps. > > > > I have not tested speeds since I upgraded firmware to 15.1 so if a bug was > recently introduced I know nothing of it. > > > > On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Aaron demonstrated some throughput improvements with both NAT and bridge > mode back around 14.2 development. IIRC, they were able to get a little > over 70Mbps downlink in bridge mode on a standard 450 SM. Real TCP > throughput, not a link test. > > What I was seeing on some of our most heavily loaded 450 sectors is the AP > seemed to max out around 55Mbps downlink and 10-11k PPS. In that case I'm > thinking the issue was simply the PPS limit and not that the AP was limited > to 55Mbps. > > As far as the SM, I don't know. Perhaps a regression with 15.x. 15.0.x did > have some high-priority issues. > > On 7/1/2017 2:25 PM, Craig Schmaderer wrote: > > Ok, I have tried to get cambium to publicly admit to this ever since I > started using 450 a few years ago. The current sm in no way can pass more > than about 50-55 mbs of real traffic. This has never been a real issue > however because I don't do those kind of speed plans. I have been waiting > for their new sm design to take care of this. If anyone disagrees with me I > would love to chat. (Really) > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Af <[email protected]> <[email protected]> on behalf of > George Skorup <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:01:22 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > > 14.2.1 has its own issues, mostly the high-priority bugs, but I thought > that would achieve 60+? > > I guess someone could try a 450i SM on 15.1 and see if it's any better. > That should rule out or confirm the CPU suspicion. > > On 6/28/2017 6:53 PM, Ryan Ray wrote: > > That's about all I get on a 450 as well. I think it's CPU bound. > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > See attached. This is a 20mb SM. Again, it will burst up to 52 mb > > <image001.jpg> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > What QoS settings in the SM? > > > > Chris Wright > > Network Administrator > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:36 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > > Yes. Just yesterday tested a 450i AP (40mhz) with a 20mb 450 SM. Linktests > showed 137 x 58 but most we could burst to was 52 x 45. Both AP and SM are > on 15.1. > > > > I currently have a support ticket open for this as well as increased DFS > issues. > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Colin Stanners <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We setup a customer on a very lightly loaded 5ghz PMP450 AP and SM, 20mhz > channel, expecting them to burst up to 70mbit speeds for download; linktest > is reliably 85-90d and there's effectively no other usage. But we can't > seem to get over 50mbit speedtests. Has anyone else seen such issues? > > >
