Absolutely lower latency. Should be identical to pmp100 I think? Definitely a lot better than the 5ms.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, but I haven't had to colo it with a PMP100 so at the time I glossed > over it. > > I was wondering if I was missing out on lower latency.....sounds like > that's a yes. > > > On 12/5/2015 10:22 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: > > 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>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> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > >
