wasnt 2.5 frames announced some time ago? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
