Im looking forward to getting the 3.65 and 5G medusa on our network soon.
 We have a site with 6 450i fully loaded around 40 -50 subs each being fed by a
ptp650 and ptp800 system.
I usually see about 98 to 99% frame use on 2 of them during peak hours because there a
couple subs pulling down below 16qam
Working that issue to remove those few and bring capacity to full.
I have ptp820 on order to upgrade the ptp650 and very excited about that.

I see the majority of our customers have a constant speed and latency without issue.
cant beat that 10ms ping to google :)


On 02/13/2018 09:48 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
The flaw with those calcs is that the actually does, theoretically, have 7x the capacity of anything else out there doing 256qam in a 20mhz channel. Granted, you're probably never actually going to get that kind of capacity in the real world, since it's going to depend on the conditions being perfect, and the customers all being in just the right geographic location, but 3-4 times the capacity of a typical 2x2 system isn't at all unrealistic... that said, I've never used 450m, and probably never will, because we just don't have the kind of subscriber density where it would make sense anywhere in our network.

Also, anybody that would put 80 customers on a single AP on a 20mhz channel with any 2x2 system that's currently available is... nuts.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote:

    Further note: You can see I did those calcs at 1024QAM, so reduce that
    down the 256QAM for closer to real numbers :)

    On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Josh Reynolds
    <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote:
    > Let's break this down a bit.
    >
    > Firstly, what outdoor PTMP platform is really using WiFi
    anymore? *shakes head*
    >
    > Mu-MIMO only works if the clients are sufficiently spread apart
    > (physically), and their tx/rx windows can fit into almost the same
    > timeframe. Any degradation in signal of one client that ends up
    in the
    > same window as other clients reduces the overall capacity of the AP
    > (like in many other situations). It can, in some situations, lead to
    > cumulative transfer windows where overall throughput ends up getting
    > reduced as the rx/tx hold time for the other clients end up taking a
    > hit in efficiency. This is one of the few failings of MU-MIMO, not
    > even taking into account "massive" systems like 14x14 that end up
    > costing quite a bit in overall power budget due to the number of
    > elements, further meaning that your range is severely limited in a
    > system like this... so only decent in very dense situations.
    That's a
    > unique niche.
    >
    > So, 80 clients. That's a pretty average number for a modern system
    > (450, Mimosa, AC Prism Gen2).
    >
    > 30Mbps per client... okay, but most customers are actually
    streaming.
    > Let's throw another margin on top of that and say a few Mbps for
    > gaming. 10Mbps is a nice round number. Now, that data gets sent in
    > most services in bursts and buffered, so it's not continuous. Let's
    > take that average number down to about 8 Mbps. Now let's assume that
    > maybe 70% of those 80 customers is doing something like that, and
    > that's probably a generous number. 56 customers. So 56 customers x
    > 8Mbps = 448Mbps. On a 20Mhz channel? Wait, this doesn't seem to work
    > out!
    >
    > Soo.... 1024 QAM on a 20MHz channel gives you 250Mbps, very roughly.
    > If you're optimistic about modern patterns, you're between an 80/20
    > and a 60/40 Download/Upload ratio on a split GPS synced system.
    >
    > 80/20 = 200Mbps Down, 50Mbps Up
    > 60/40 = 150 Down, 100Mbps Up
    >
    > Let's say for the sake of argument that you're in the 80/20 camp,
    > giving you 200Mbps to work with in above perfect conditions,
    gives you
    > 3.57 Mbps per subscriber. Roughly 4M/sub, good for 480p streaming.
    >
    > That's a very expensive platform for that kind of throughput and
    > subscriber count with such limitations in range and needed a
    "perfect
    > storm" of client distribution and data patterns to really take
    > advantage of. With working GPS in all modern platforms, I would be
    > hard pressed to not use an additional 20mhz channel if available, or
    > just cut the channel width in half to 10MHz each, and put up 4
    Mimosas
    > or 4 Gen2 Prism radios and have far more than 4x the possible
    > subscriber account, improved tx/rx efficiency, improved range
    > (increasing distance and SNR in many situations), and greatly
    reduced
    > cost.
    >
    > Again, I'm far more excited about the 4x increase in spectral
    > efficiency via OFDMA that doesn't cause you to cut down on tx/rx
    > chains for multi-client transmission (costing your range, per client
    > snr, and per-client throughput in the process). MU-MIMO is and will
    > always be a niche hack that never lived up to what was promised.
    >
    > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us
    <mailto:af...@zirkel.us>> wrote:
    >> Being able to load a 450m AP with 80 subs and deliver 30mbps
    service to all
    >> of them at peak Netflix time in a 20mhz channel without
    breaking a sweat is
    >> worth every penny.
    >>
    >> But it’s one tool in the tool box and isn’t the best solution
    for every
    >> deployment.
    >>
    >> 2 cents
    >>
    >> -sean
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 PM Josh Reynolds
    <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The more I dig into MU-MIMO, the more I realize it's not all
    that great.
    >>>
    >>> I am far more excited by the 9 client simultaneous
    transmissions in
    >>> 802.11ax via OFDMA.
    >>>
    >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Adam Moffett
    <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >>> > 450 still does a few things that ePMP doesn't.
    >>> > Plus there's that 14 chain MU-MIMO thing......ePMP will
    probably never
    >>> > have
    >>> > something like that.
    >>> > UI is still sluggish on ePMP.
    >>> >
    >>> > On the other hand ePMP has gotten so many feature
    improvements over
    >>> > these
    >>> > past few years that it's gotten really hard to argue with
    the value it
    >>> > provides.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > ------ Original Message ------
    >>> > From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>>
    >>> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    >>> > Sent: 2/12/2018 8:27:56 PM
    >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp
    >>> >
    >>> > The UI server was probably the worst I have ever seen.
    >>> >
    >>> > So, less than 25 subs per site, what speed packages do you
    sell to those
    >>> > 25?
    >>> >
    >>> > Packetflux GPS sync.
    >>> >
    >>> > From: Joe Novak
    >>> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:20 PM
    >>> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp
    >>> >
    >>> > What didn't you like about it? The interface came a long way
    since the
    >>> > early
    >>> > days of EPMP. We've got quite a bit deployed. A lot of
    people are having
    >>> > weird GPS situations come up with the on-board GPS, we have
    this problem
    >>> > once in a while too. Our packetflux sites are rock solid
    though. That is
    >>> > assuming density isn't more then 25 per AP, because then I
    don't exactly
    >>> > have enough experience with it. Most of our APs are sitting
    right around
    >>> > 25
    >>> > customers, and according to airtime we still have quite a
    bit of room.
    >>> >
    >>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Jaime Solorza
    >>> > <losguyswirel...@gmail.com <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>>
    >>> > wrote:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> I separated frequencies to three I found cleanest on
    AFx5s...On Rockets
    >>> >> and Powerbeams I choose one frequency and shut off the rest
    on APs and
    >>> >> on
    >>> >> PowerBeams I only use two...this method has worked well
    since August of
    >>> >> 2017
    >>> >> when I replaced all the radios on this network and have had
    to change
    >>> >> them
    >>> >> since.  Two of the WISPs live in Fabens and work with us on
    issues.
    >>> >> The
    >>> >> other one from El Paso uses my services once in a while and
    works with
    >>> >> us as
    >>> >> well.  Texas Gas put up allot of 5GHz units around Fabens
    but still no
    >>> >> issues. I used larger dishes at Wells and lift stations as
    well.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Jaime Solorza
    >>> >>
    >>> >> On Feb 12, 2018 4:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza" <losguyswirel...@gmail.com
    <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>>
    >>> >> wrote:
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Two AF5x on same tower, One AP on second tower 20 ft
    away...all other
    >>> >>> radios within 4 mile radius...
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> Jaime Solorza
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2018 4:43 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com
    <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>> All on the same tower, right?
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>> From: Jaime Solorza
    >>> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:41 PM
    >>> >>>> To: Animal Farm
    >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>> Yes..I have two AF5X links as PTP and 25 radios all in 5
    GHz off 4
    >>> >>>> APs
    >>> >>>> in Fabens, Texas sharing spectrum with 3 WISPs...no issues...
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>> Jaime Solorza
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2018 4:32 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com
    <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
    >>> >>>>>
    >>> >>>>> Talking to a friend that wants to build a small wisp. 
    He is about
    >>> >>>>> 5.5
    >>> >>>>> miles from a backbone connection.  I would suggest AF5X
    to him but
    >>> >>>>> he is
    >>> >>>>> gonna want to use 5 GHz for his wisp I presume.
    >>> >>>>>
    >>> >>>>> Can an AF5X and some 5 GHz cambium (or others) access points
    >>> >>>>> peacefully
    >>> >>>>> coexist on a tower?
    >>> >>>>> Very rural area.  Not expecting much interference other
    than home
    >>> >>>>> routers.
    >>> >
    >>> >



--

Reply via email to