So actual throughput could be slightly better or slightly worse, depending on the type of traffic? On Dec 6, 2015 5:00 PM, "Dan Sullivan" <daniel.sulli...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > > Josh is right. > > > > 2.5 msec frame also was created to provide much lower latency for fixed > ratios: 75/25, 50/50, 30/70. > > > > The headline throughput will be a little less, because there is more frame > overhead since double the amount of packets / frames, but overall latency > is decreased which can help TCP and also increase TCP throughput. > Throughput for 2.5 versus 5 msec should be compared for each case. > > > > Dan Sullivan > > ePMP Software Manager > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman > *Sent:* Saturday, December 05, 2015 12:57 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2.5ms frame > > > > 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> > 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. > > > > > > > > > > >
