I thought that I had been told both ePMP radios had the same CPU, but somebody said that the GPS radios are supposed to be able to handle more PPS, so I'm not sure... I'm pretty sure they do have more RAM, so that may make the difference.
But there are really only two variants - GPS and non-GPS. The PTP 110 is exactly the same hardware as the other GPS radio, it's just limited to 10 SMs. On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > OK, ignore me, I seem to be having a bad math day. > Also trying to grasp the concept of actually using a 40 MHz channel. > But I was also remembering an ePMP data sheet with a 150 Mbps number. > Probably because there are so many ePMP variants. > I assume the lesser model is limited by CPU, not RF? > > *From:* George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:02 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync > > ePMP is 64QAM. 256 would be nice, but there's always the PTP450 for that, > which of course is limited to 20MHz though. I have a 10 mile ePMP link on > 2' dishes running in the 5.1 band. 20MHz channel. I get 98Mbps aggregate. I > see no reason why a 40MHz channel couldn't do 200Mbps, maybe a little more. > > On 7/21/2015 1:31 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > The answer you are looking for is 802.11ac? > > Anyway, I guess I’m mistaken and 220M may be the right number for 256QAM > in 40 MHz. Assuming the planets align and every sub is at max modulation > with no retries. > > *From:* Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:23 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync > > > And Mimosa is... > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > On Jul 21, 2015 2:19 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >> Really, 220 Mbps in a 40 MHz channel? That’s a bunch for something >> based on an 802.11n PHY. >> >> I think the regular Force 110 spec sheet says 150M, does the GPS sync >> version really say 220M? I’m not disputing it, just surprised/amazed. >> >> >> *From:* Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:15 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync >> >> >> 220 would be perfect. I've had nothing but great RF performance. Did >> you see my story about going from Beams to force110? >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Jul 21, 2015 1:51 PM, "Joshua Heide" < <j...@velociter.net> >> j...@velociter.net> wrote: >> >>> Looking into these units. Wondering what kind of throughput people are >>> getting with these. Are you getting the 220mbps real world throughput that >>> they claim? >>> >>> >>> >>> Josh Heide >>> >>> Network Engineer >>> >>> Velociter Wireless, Inc. >>> >>> (209)838-1221 x108 >>> >>> >>> >> >
