At least the browser back button works properly now! On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
> GUI improved in 3.2 I think > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340> > Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343> > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's mainly JS (client side) that makes the GUI so dreadful. But, I >> think it's improved greatly in 3.x. >> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Stefan Englhardt <s...@genias.net> wrote: >> >>> I realy would not dare to do this with ePMP. Guess scrolling thru 120 >>> entries with the webinterface will kill the AP ;-)). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Mathew Howard >>> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 20:27 >>> *An:* af <af@afmug.com> >>> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes... this isn't airmax we're talking about... >>> >>> I haven't heard of any problems related to the number of SM's with ePMP. >>> You're obviously going to run out of capacity if you have too many, but I >>> imagine if they were all low use connections it'd handle 120 just fine. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Right....IMO the number of subscribers the thing can efficiently handle >>> is basically irrelevant because you'll run out of capacity before you hit >>> that number. That's probably true with a lot of stuff these days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> >>> From: "Josh Baird" <joshba...@gmail.com> >>> >>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>> >>> Sent: 1/5/2017 2:08:32 PM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>> >>> >>> >>> We have ePMP AP's with 55 subs that are doing just fine. Probably won't >>> load any more on it due to high downlink utilization during peak usage. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Over 20-30 subs not recommended by whom? >>> >>> When I talked to Cambium about subscriber density, they said they've >>> tested with up to 120, but suggested keeping it under 65. I do have an >>> ePMP AP with 43 SM's at this point, no trouble that I'm aware of. It hits >>> abou 60% air utilization at peak times. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Trey Scarborough" <t...@3dsc.co> >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Sent: 1/5/2017 9:21:24 AM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>> >>> Your biggest difference is your throughput per MHZ your epmp will do >>> less bandwidth in a 20mhz channel than a 450. he other big difference is >>> subscriber density. It is not recommended to go over 20-30 subs per AP on >>> epmp without loss of performance. I regularly see 450 APs with 70+ subs per >>> AP. With Medusa I have seen over 130. As far as the Medusa not being field >>> proven you may not have field tested it yet, but I know for a fact it has >>> been tested and running on networks for some time now and a viable solution. >>> >>> If you have any more questions feel free to hit me up off list. >>> >>> On 1/5/2017 7:36 AM, David Milholen wrote: >>> >>> The radios on these 2 are entirely different. One is using std based >>> radio and the other completely proprietary. >>> >>> Since framing will be slightly different and so will processing delay. >>> The stds based radio gets close to mimicking the >>> >>> 450 series but thats strictly based on Cambium magic. Capacity and >>> sustained rates per VC is the where you will see a difference. >>> >>> Latency will be very consistent from ap to sub. PMP450i is where its at. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/4/2017 2:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: >>> >>> if im running 75/25, epmp is roughly 87mb capacity, 450 93mb capacity >>> is this correct? >>> >>> are efficiencies batter on 450 if installation is the same? ie, if I >>> forlifted one AP with 17 epmps to 450, where would my gains be >>> assuming everything stays installed in the same spot. Its not like the >>> FCC gives 450 any more power than epmp, so path loss should be the same. >>> Im looking at this epmp 1000 sector thats running overall about 64-7% >>> efficient with 17 subscribers and wondering what the gain is to move >>> to 450 (exclude medusa, as its not field proven) >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
