Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-04 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
Uh, no. Definitely not good. Here's one of mine for comparison. Which is also where I'm having odd issues with two 3GHz 450 sectors. Not to mention the same problems at sites with parasitics. I have another SyncInjector at another site running a 5GHz 450 AP and it works fine. Plus dozens and

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-04 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)
Looks like the GPS is losing lock. The counters I'm talking about are on the analog tab On Mar 4, 2015 8:58 AM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote: I reset these counters about a week ago. I think this is not normal? bp part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 3/4/2015 1:57 AM, Forrest

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-04 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
Hey Forrest, any luck on the updated build for the Base-1's, minus the web GUI of course? I would really like to get the .0 row via SNMPwalk so my indexed Cacti template works for both Base-1's and 2's. On 3/4/2015 3:57 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: There are some pulse counts

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-04 Thread Bill Prince
We're doing the same thing thresholding on the 1PPS Active counter. But we (still) don't have any of our 3GHz PMP450s in the air yet. Was hoping to have at least one of them up this week, but it's not worked out that way. We are getting messages like these in the event log of the affected APs:

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-04 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)
There are some pulse counts on the syncinjectors which may help you troubleshoot. Pulses used should go up by one every second, no more, no less. None of the other counters should increment except very rarely. If you're seeing anything else, shoot a couple of screenshots into

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-02 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
Yes, there are issues I'm seeing with AutoSync on all bands with 13.2/13.2.1. But 3GHz is... different, and I don't know why. I have a couple APs on a SyncInjector and some single APs on parasitic pipes. I thought it was just the SyncInjector or something else at the site until I started

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-02 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
Yes. http://manuals.packetflux.com/index.php?page=using-a-syncpipe-parasitic-with-a-syncinjector On 3/2/2015 11:25 AM, Bill Prince wrote: We have a syncpipe basic that we think is starting to act up. It seems to lose sync about once every day or two for about 1 second. It's starting to

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-02 Thread Bill Prince
Thanks George! i take it from the description that this boogers up the power/outputs such that (ether?) RJ45 on the parasitic can be used to connect to the syncinjector? One of the RJ45s has lights, and the other is just a vanilla shielded RJ45 (I'm looking at a rev H1). So I can just build

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-02 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
Doesn't matter. The RJ45's are just pass-thru. The new universal pipes pull power from two pins, so it can be used with either PMP100/450 or 430 APs. But I always have the guys put the jumper out to the radio into the center RJ45 and the cable from the injector to the RJ45 with the LEDs, just

Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux basic versus parasitic?

2015-03-02 Thread Bill Prince
Not this one. This one is running a pair of PMP450s in 5 GHz. We're putting up a pair of PMP450s soon on different POPs; one will go into a syncinjector, the other will be a CTM. Is there some issue that you're seeing on the 3GHz varaiety? bp part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 3/2/2015 10:06