I'd increase the control slots. On FSK the control slots are a substantial hit since the aggregate of the sector is 4mbps but on the 450 the control slots are not that huge of a hit. I can't remember how big they are but it's a cpl hundred Kb.
I'd try increasing them to the max that allows you to stay in sync with your FSK network and see what happens. -Sean On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net> wrote: > In response to you and George. Yes I am on a 7mhx channel. Co located with > FSK. We froze the conversion for now from FSK to the 450i because of the > concerns we had with the uplink and control slots needed. Obviously if we > got rid of the FSK or did a lot of configuration changes network wide on > FSK we could add more control slots to as George said to try and increase > the ability of the SM to get its download scheduled. When we hit peak times > that’s exactly what we are running into is the download isn’t always > getting scheduled. > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Sean > Heskett > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:47 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > > > what channel size are you using? if you are at 7mhz or 10mhz then the > utilization and throughput you mentioned is in line with what i would > expect. if you are on a 20mhz channel then something is wrong or your > noise environment is just bad. > > > > what modulation rates are the SMs running? if you have a lot of 1X or 2X > SMs then you'll drag down the whole AP > > > > -Sean > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Brandon Yuchasz <li...@gogebicrange.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','li...@gogebicrange.net');>> wrote: > > Its good ( kinda) to see we are not the only ones that are running into > the frame utilization issues with the upload on to the AP. Once we got to > around 20sm we started to see the top of what we could do with an AP. For > those of you that are seeing noise at the AP side but not at the SM side > are you seeing >80% upload in your link tests? If so are you finding the > same load of around 20 SM to be the top where you hit full frame > utilization at peak times? I see our AP's moving around 30mbps aggregated > at peak times never more it seems to be topped out. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of Ken > Hohhof > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:44 AM > To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it. > > What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to > 450i will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the > real broadband business. > > But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to > predict. It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel > widths. And my (limited) experience was yes we got better throughput and > fewer losses of registration. > > You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running > full xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 > dB in the upstream direction. So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell > the SM it only has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna? From your numbers, I think > you're going to have to. Unless you have one of those situations where a > wider beam to illuminate more foliage would actually perform better. > > It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com');>] On Behalf Of Jay > Weekley > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM > To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > > I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is. > For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old > stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage > them with the 450i 900 gear? > > Dave wrote: > > George, > > Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i > > 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the > > penetration and numbers we able to see. > > Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket. > > We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points > > or more. > > > > The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that > > can be sustained on an AP. > > Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with > > about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package. > > I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst. > > I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really > > close for what we see. > > Yes, even through some pine > > > > > > On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote: > >> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't > >> hear those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered > itself. > >> > >> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a > >> mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not > >> only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it > >> actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to > >> run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds > >> a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise > >> floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And > >> we won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, > >> that I'm sure. > >> > >> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: > >>> In Wimax it's 4x4....I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, > >>> but I think feature was released only a month or so ago. We have a > >>> few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2. > >>> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can > >>> hang on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax. It was explained to me > >>> that Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has > >>> to be received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data > >>> interspersed among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE > >>> sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay > >>> connected. It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right > >>> down to the noise floor. And at least in theory you'll get more > >>> throughput than you get in the same conditions on Wimax. > >>> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing. > >>> Just because they work doesn't mean you want them. We're not > >>> intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, > >>> so we really ought to be ok on that front. > >>> -Adam > >>> ------ Original Message ------ > >>> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');> <mailto: > geo...@cbcast.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>>> > >>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > <mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> > >>> Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > >>>> Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? > >>>> Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage. > >>>> > >>>> My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. > >>>> Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole > >>>> bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the > >>>> investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be. > >>>> > >>>> I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. > >>>> Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come > >>>> "fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get > >>>> it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my > >>>> 450's spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, > >>>> so I know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt > >>>> they're running it over powered. > >>>> > >>>> Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens. > >>>> > >>>> On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: > >>>>> We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're > >>>>> running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e > >>>>> installations. We have a number of sites now that have entirely > >>>>> dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE. We're > >>>>> installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, > >>>>> and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites. > >>>>> So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more. I'll definitely > >>>>> report back. > >>>>> It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all." The > >>>>> issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it > >>>>> comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and > >>>>> troubleshooting. I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not > >>>>> Telrad specifically....and I've used Wimax from three different > >>>>> vendors now. I have no fear about LTE working. I _am_ afraid it > >>>>> will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax. > >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ > >>>>> From: "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');> > >>>>> <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geo...@cbcast.com');>>> > >>>>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > <mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> > >>>>> Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > >>>>>> Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: > >>>>>>> I'll let you know in a few weeks. > >>>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ > >>>>>>> From: ch...@wbmfg.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@wbmfg.com');> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ch...@wbmfg.com');>> > >>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > <mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> > >>>>>>> Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > >>>>>>>> I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI. > >>>>>>>> *From:* Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>> > >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM > >>>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > <mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> > >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > >>>>>>>> Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that. > >>>>>>>> 900 was the last ditch effort for both of these. > >>>>>>>> With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both > >>>>>>>> locations. > >>>>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ > >>>>>>>> From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>>> > >>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > <mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> > >>>>>>>> Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > >>>>>>>>> On the other end of the quality spectrum: > >>>>>>>>> *Link Test with Bridging > >>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit > Packet Receive > >>>>>>>>> Actual Actual > >>>>>>>>> 19 6.07 Mbps 1.32 Mbps 7.39 Mbps, 474 pps > 821 (410 pps) > >>>>>>>>> 128(64 pps) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel. On any wider channel I lose > >>>>>>>>> this guy. > >>>>>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ > >>>>>>>>> From: "Dave" <dmilho...@wletc.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmilho...@wletc.com');> > >>>>>>>>> <mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmilho...@wletc.com');>>> > >>>>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');> > <mailto:af@afmug.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers? > >>>>>>>>>> This is from one of ours > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Current Results Status > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Stats for LUID: 3 Test Duration: 5 Pkt Length: 1714 Test > >>>>>>>>>> Direction Bi-Directional > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *RF Link Test* > >>>>>>>>>> VC Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit > Packet Receive > >>>>>>>>>> Actual Actual > >>>>>>>>>> 19 26.13 Mbps 6.78 Mbps 32.92 Mbps, 2367 pps > 2389 (477 > >>>>>>>>>> pps) 9450(1890 pps) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Efficiency* > >>>>>>>>>> Downlink Uplink > >>>>>>>>>> Efficiency Fragments > >>>>>>>>>> count Efficiency Fragments > >>>>>>>>>> count > >>>>>>>>>> Actual Expected Actual Expected > >>>>>>>>>> 100% 255254 255254 78% 84124 66231 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Link Test ran on 03:59:48 01/09/2011 UTC > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Currently transmitting at:* > >>>>>>>>>> VC 19 Rate 8X/8X MIMO-B > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 09/23/2016 03:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> We're looking at doing a forklift on a couple of 900 MHz FSK > >>>>>>>>>>> APs. What are real world throughput numbers that any of you > >>>>>>>>>>> pioneers are getting? We would probably want to do 10 MHz > >>>>>>>>>>> channels at first, and I would hope that we could get > 15 > >>>>>>>>>>> Mbps in download, but maybe I'm being too conservative? > >>>>>>>>>>> The places we are looking at do not have Smart Meter issues. > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> bp > >>>>>>>>>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > -- > > > > >
