Correct. Let's be honest, it's all TCP Netflix... So better :) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 6, 2015 7:09 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
