More ports is *never* bad. And if I don't use them all, so what.
Something always comes up, like that micro-POP you never thought would
grow. I have about a dozen sites which started out with 900 and 2.4 FSK
omnis. They've grown to needing a full 4x90 cluster of both. Then I need
a backhaul port, and potentially a second backhaul port, so we're at
9-10 ports easily. Yes, FSK days are dwindling, but it still exists.
Probably won't go away for another 2-3 years.
On 3/11/2016 8:49 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I think sticking with 4 port and 12 port for the DIN rail version
makes the most sense. If we only need 8 ports, we can just use two 4
ports, since it doesn't sound like an 8 port version would save much
in the way of space or cost over two 4 ports anyway.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
<li...@packetflux.com <mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> wrote:
Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be
available in either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18
port versions, depending on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per
'chunk'.....all of these will be upwardly expandable.
So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted
unit. Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.
Mechanically 12 ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port
units, since I only need one set of input and output jacks for the
injector, so that's why I'm thinking that way. I could go to 8
instead, but that opens up a whole can of worms (as an example,
just shrinking the case triggers the potential need for a
different din rail mounting kit).
It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would
probably work for many, if not most sites. Is that fair?
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18
port injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a
12 port; or maybe even an 8 port. We have only one POP that
would need the higher count.
If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal"
4 port injector (in the same form factor as the existing
syncinjectors)....
And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming
as well - up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
And then we have the item the question is about.
I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din
rail mountable enclosure. If you think about gluing two
syncinjectors on top of each other and having 12 ports
instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm talking about.
I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.
My thought would be that once you get to more than a handful
of radios at a site, you're probably going to end up wanting
the rackmount solution....
Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same
space as this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the
proposed device.
How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site
that you wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena,
MT 59602
forre...@imach.com <mailto:forre...@imach.com> |
http://www.packetflux.com
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>
<http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com <mailto:forre...@imach.com> |
http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.packetflux.com/>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>
<http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
