Have they confirmed that you will be able to get a key? I assumed they would eventually, but I hadn't heard anything about it... that would be very good news.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
