Software limited to 10 SMs. You can (eventually, I don't think currently) get the software limit up with a key.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
