Ripping and replacing a FSK with a 450 is generally not going to go well unless you are absolutely certain your customers are going to modulate at the highest rate.
A better scenario if you can manage it is to hang the 450 alongside the FSK and then only move the heavy customers with strong signals. On Nov 6, 2015 12:21 PM, "Eric Muehleisen" <ericm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tyson, > 1. We are using Cambium stock 65* dualslant antennas. > 2. Mix of routers. We have a BYOR (bring your own router) policy. > 3. All AP's are sync'd with either CMM4 or CTM2. > > Adam, > We will certainly focus more attention on those SM's that have poor > modulation. It wouldn't surprise me if the most active SM's are the > ones stuck at 1x or 2x. > > George, > We have not considered downgrading. Our entire network has been > upgraded to 13.4. That over 500 SM's at this point. I'm a little > nervous about downgrading. > > The reality here is that upgrading a FSK sector to 450 gets us only a > little over double the capacity. FSK aggregates around 13mb/s and > around 27mb/s aggregate for the 450. This is quite disappointing. It > appears that we must now be very selective over what SM's can > register. A nearly impossible task in our situation. Use caution if > you plan on ripping and replacing your old FSK. You will not yield the > kind of throughput you'd expect. > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Tyson Burris @ Internet > Communications Inc <t...@franklinisp.net> wrote: > > Eric, > > > > Thanks for bringing this up. We recently started deploying about 30 450 > AP's. Our testing in the field and with customers is producing the same > EXACT problem you just reported. > > > > More importantly, we see this problem on AP's with low SM's to high SM > ranges (5-45). Same firmware. > > > > Let's compare some notes: > > > > 1. What antennas are you using? > > 2. What routers / OS are you using? > > 3. What sync source are you using? > > > > We see high frame uses even on the AP's with low SM's and great > modulation rates. > > I can understand if a large number of SM's have low modulation it will > eat up frames, but the outcome is the same on low and high SM counts. > > > > > > > > Tyson Burris, President > > Internet Communications Inc. > > 739 Commerce Dr. > > Franklin, IN 46131 > > > > 317-738-0320 Daytime # > > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # > > Online: www.surfici.net > > > > > > What can ICI do for you? > > > > Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - > IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the > > addressee shown. It contains information that is > > confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, > > dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by > > unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly > > prohibited. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen > > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 12:51 PM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: [AFMUG] 450 frame utilization and performance issues > > > > We have a few 450 AP's with 30-40 subscribers and have been getting > several slow speed complaints lately. I just chaulked it up to issues with > the SM since the AP rarely got over 20mb/s downlink. We upgraded to 13.4 > recently so we could watch our frame utilization. We started graphing it > over night and as you can see, we are hitting 100% for sustained periods of > time. During that time the AP is only doing approx. 23mb/s. This particular > AP has 34 registered SM and the majority show 6x and 4x with 4 or 5 SM's at > 2x and 1x. The performance is a major disappointment. Anyone else have > similar experiences? > > > > AP configuration: 20mhz channels, 2.5ms frame, 10 miles, 75% downlink, > > 3 contention slots. > > > > Attached is a screenshot of the utilization and sector throughput > calculator from the Capacity Planner R13. > > >
