Like 80% sure I'm right but ya latency is the most important. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 4, 2015 7:47 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't throughput supposed to be slightly worse with 2.5ms, or am I > remembering that wrong? There is definitely a big improvement in latency. > > Either way, I don't think the difference in throughput is enough to care > about, I'd rather have the lower latency. > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: > >> A bit more throughput. Not worth changing from 5ms to 2.5ms if all >> you're after is throughput. Any new APs I do 2.5ms instead of 5ms since >> there's no reason to do it "the old way". You do get better latency - >> 7.5ms improvement. >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It's a big day for ePMP threads. >>> >>> If I recall correctly, the 2.5ms frame size was introduced to aid in >>> collocation with the PMP100. Is there any performance impact? My first >>> thought was that a shorter frame would give me lower latency, but it's >>> probably not that simple. >>> >>> >>> >> >
