Here's the stats from my SM. It varies a bit, but is still much more
usable than the UBNT. We have a handful of customers in similar
situations. Some we've even taken off of 900 FSK. Don't expect miracles,
but don't say.. oh, there's a tree in the way, it's never going to work.
Try it and see what you get.
Receive Power :
-59.2 dB (-61.0 dB B / -64.0 dB A)
Signal Strength Ratio :
3.0 dB B-A
Signal to Noise Ratio :
34 B / 37 A dB
Beacons :
100%
Receive Fragments Modulation :
Path B:QPSK:65% 16-QAM:17% 64-QAM:8% 256-QAM:10%
Path A:QPSK:30% 16-QAM:26% 64-QAM:23% 256-QAM:22%
Latest Remote Link Test Efficiency Percentage :
NA%
BER Total Avg Results :
9.508931e-06
Transmit Power :
24 dBm
Max Transmit Power :
25 dBm
Power Level :
-58.9 (-63.0 B / -61.0 A) dBm
Signal Strength Ratio :
0.0 dB B - A
Signal to Noise Ratio :
31 dB B / 33 dB A
Latest Remote Link Test Efficiency Percentage :
NA%
Stats for LUID: 3 Test Duration: 2 Pkt Length: 1714 Test Direction
Bi-Directional
*RF Link Test*
VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet
Receive
Actual Actual
19 40906752 bps
(40.90 Mbps) 10936320 bps
(10.93 Mbps) 51843072 bps
(51.84 Mbps), 3732 pps) 1574 (787 pps) 5891(2945 pps)
*Efficiency*
Downlink Uplink
Efficiency Fragments
count Signal to
Noise Ratio Efficiency Fragments
count Signal to
Noise Ratio
Actual Expected Actual Expected
100% 159792 159792 36 dB B
39 dB A 100% 42720 42720 35 dB B
36 dB A
*
Link Quality
Downlink
*
RF Path Modulation Fragments Modulation
Percentage Average Corrected
Bit Errors
B QPSK 19882 25% 1.382
B 16-QAM 19882 25% 1.730
B 64-QAM 19880 25% 2.144
B 256-QAM 19882 25% 1.481
A QPSK 19884 25% 0.469
A 16-QAM 19882 25% 0.745
A 64-QAM 19882 25% 0.903
A 256-QAM 19883 25% 0.481
*Uplink
*
RF Path Modulation Fragments Modulation
Percentage Average Corrected
Bit Errors
B QPSK 6356 30% 1.741
B 16-QAM 6336 30% 1.979
B 64-QAM 6311 30% 2.140
B 256-QAM 2292 11% 3.737
A QPSK 6379 30% 0.722
A 16-QAM 6374 30% 0.861
A 64-QAM 6366 30% 0.984
A 256-QAM 2327 11% 2.063
On 6/7/2016 6:41 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Sounds like it's worth a try...
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 7, 2016 7:34 PM, "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
My house is on a 3.6 450 SM on a reflector. Almost exactly a mile
away to the tower where the standard Cambium OEM 90 degree sector
is at 225 feet. I have a large maple tree in the way and skimming
another about 150 feet away. I get about -58dBm. When the tree is
wet it'll drop to maybe -67 or so. Compare that with the UBNT 3.65
that I used to be on... it's night and day. The tree would get wet
and I'd be at like -80. Almost unusable. So I think the dual slant
on the 450 helps quite a bit. Even when the tree wasn't wet and
I'd be at like -62 on the UBNT, I still couldn't get more than
15-16Mbps out of it. I mostly sit at 256QAM up and down on the 450
and get about 37x11Mbps. 10MHz channel. We have other sectors in
the area so I can't run a 20MHz channel on that sector. :(
On 6/7/2016 1:49 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Has anyone tried 450 3.65 for near Los situations like this
discussion?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 7, 2016 2:46 PM, "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
Take into account the 24-25dBm Tx power on a 2.4 FSK AP vs
22dBm on a 2.4 450 AP. And you'll probably get a better
pattern on a sector vs omni. A V-pol omni doesn't typically
have a horrible pattern though. Except for vertical
beamwidth. Then you play with electronic downtilt models,
etc. So it's probably moot as far as Rx power levels go
between the two.
We get OK penetration on the 2.4 450 sector we have up. Not
so much the noise at the tower as it is at the SMs. We're
going to get rid of it eventually along with all of the other
2.4 shit. It's a dead band just like 900 to us now.
On 6/7/2016 1:33 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Omni to a sector, of course. You're probably getting more
than 2 db unless it was a bonkers big omni and super small
sector.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Kurt Fankhauser
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com <mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
I have moved from pmp100 to 450 on 2.4ghz. Didn't do a
cluster though. Went from a 2.4FSK on a 12db Omni to a
two 450 sectors from KP 120 beam width (think 14db) .
Was able to hook up every single customer I has on the
FSK to the 450 and some were near-LOS. The 450 in 2.4ghz
actually has impressively decent nLOS. I think its a lot
better than the 3.65 for NLOS. ( I have used all the 450
frequency bands except 900)
If you thinking about going 450 in 2.4 and you already
have FSK up on 2.4 and nothing abmormal with your noise
floor then do it. You'll love it. The 450 is actually
better because you can run 10-mhz channels to get around
some of the noise in 2.4 vs the FSK which was stuck at 20mhz
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Matt
<matt.mailingli...@gmail.com
<mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
So has anyone moved a PMP100 2.4 cluster too PMP450
2.4 and how did
that go? With PMP100 in 2.4 we do pretty good on
near LOS
connections. Only deployed PMP450 in 3.6 and 5ghz
so far though.
> We have mostly PMP100 and PMP450 deployed. Some
Ubiquiti we tried and
> some we inherited as well. Have some ePMP we have
tested but so far
> have not deployed more then couple test links.
>
> For those who have tried both ePMP and PMP450 what
are the differences
> you have seen in performance? Interference
tolerance among others?
>
> For those that have gone with PMP450 over ePMP
what was the reasoning?
