The SyncInjector isn't limited to 30V. At least any one released in the past few years. The label is misleading.
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 5:31 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > lol, i had a 48 v gigabit powerinjector and new syncpipe prepped for the day > even until we went to load the config to the 2000s and realized the lite > licence, the syncinjector is limited to 30 volts, so i couldnt even have just > swapped the power supply. live and learn > >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> Ah, yeah, the 24v isn't enough. Gotta use 48v. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >> To: af@afmug.com >> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 4:18:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >> >> i just got bit answering my own question. we had to swap an APC today at a >> site with epmp1000 APs on it (was going to swap to 2000, but realized we had >> lite APs and no keys) in the short outage, maybe a minute and a half, the >> radio temp dropped enough it wouldnt come backup, this is running off a >> gigabit syncinjector, but only 24 volt power supply. the heater never could >> warm this one up, just flashed the ethernet every thirty seconds or so, had >> to swap to a stand alone power supply. I guess commercial grade equipment >> really is important... it was cold up there >> >>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> No, I believe the uplink % is going away permanently. >>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> True. I'm on 3.1. Does 3.2 fix the upload %? >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>>> Sent: 1/6/2017 12:49:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>>> >>>> You're not using 3.2. >>>> >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman >>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>> Suite 1337 >>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I have nothing against adding another feature of course, but you can get >>>>> the value now: >>>>> 1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.21.2.1.54 divided by 1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.21.2.1.52 >>>>> >>>>> I'm more concerned that the upload values always come out to 100%. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>>>> Sent: 1/6/2017 11:58:58 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>>>> >>>>> If you're interested in this feature please upvote and prove Cambium >>>>> wrong! :) >>>>> >>>>> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SNMP-OID-for-Downlink-Frame-Time/idi-p/65875 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think I've upvoted it. Post a link here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>> >>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>>>>> >>>>>> The Brothers WISP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Josh Baird" <joshba...@gmail.com> >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 6:23:21 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. I even opened a feature request on their community site. >>>>>> Nearly a year ago. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Josh Luthman >>>>>>> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>>>>>> So I've got to ask, who all wants the SNMP down link % feature? >>>>>>> Cambium says I'm the only one that's ever asked for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 5, 2017 6:20 PM, "Craig Schmaderer" <cr...@skywaveconnect.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is a link 3 miles out running at 150/20 on a 30mhz channel. I >>>>>>>> don't use epmp can you run bigger channels. Im sure its a good product >>>>>>>> but with the flexibility of going to 450m and the stableness of the >>>>>>>> platform (gamers love 450) if i had the budget i wouldn't think twice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mathew Howard >>>>>>>> <mhoward...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 3:26:45 PM >>>>>>>> To: af >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp vs 450 comparison >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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.
