Joe, what throughput are you getting on those loaded 450M APs? On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Joe Falaschi <listm...@wi.net> wrote:
> What Chris said. > > Our 450Ms have been a huge game changer for us. We have a tower with 300 > people on it, pretty much all on one side (180 degrees is busy and the > other 180 degrees is pretty silent). In the past we’d add an AP to offload > capacity and that AP was used up day one. There just wasn’t a path to > catch up with demand much less start to offer faster speeds. If there is > any kind of density, greater than 100+ clients on the tower, I’m not sure > how you use anything other than 450m at this point. > > Joe > > > On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote: > > ePMP might make sense to build in a new area, but when you have 100+ > clients in a single 90 degree sector, replacing your triple-stacked PMP450 > APs with a single 450M, saving 40MHz of spectrum, offering faster speeds, > AND not having to swap 100+ radios feels mighty nice. > > Chris Wright > Network Administrator > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:58 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > I've had ePMP's do some weird things here and there, like refusing to > reboot or accept config changes. Nothing a power cycle didn't fix. > I've had to power cycle a PMP100 or 450 to fix a problem approximately > zero times. > > I know a neighbor who had a tower hit by lightning an ePMP and a Ubiquiti > Rocket died while the PMP100 and 430 stuff kept on chugging (he didn't have > 450 there yet). > > 450 has a few management conveniences like remote spectrum analyzer, RF > private IP, and SM proxy access via AP. > > So overall my experiences say the 450 is better than the ePMP, but I still > use a lot of ePMP for all the reasons others have stated. ePMP is good > bang for the buck. > > -Adam > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> > To: "af" <af@afmug.com> > Sent: 7/18/2017 10:23:17 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > It seems to me (as someone who hasn't actually used PMP450 to speak of, > other than 900mhz), that PMP450 has some advantages for high density > deployments... particularly if you're talking 450m, or even the ability to > easily upgrade to 450m. But in a network like ours, where the average SMs > per AP is somewhere around 15, I just can't see any way that it could > possibly be worth going with 450 over ePMP. > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The PMP450M can make ~~ 12° sectors. On a busy tower, and surrounded by > noisy neighbors, we're often seeing 30 dBm SNR. Nothing else comes close. > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > > On 7/17/2017 10:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > Serious question, not my usual sarcasm, how are you 450 folks justifying > the substantial proce difference between 450 and epmp, seriously, if you > dont freeze in the winter, i couldnt justify it. Granted we dont sellbover > 12\2 and we dont have more than 40 per ap, i just dont see the value, they > did too good a job on epmp > > On Jul 3, 2017 12:10 PM, "Craig Schmaderer" <cr...@skywaveconnect.com> > wrote: > I have never seen more than around 55mbps on 450sm in bridge mode with any > firmware. Maybe I missed a 14.x that it did, but I haven't seen more than > 55mbps on any 15.x firmware. I am working on a bug with then on 15.1 where > it looks like the qos speed limiters are not enforcing speed settings. I > have never tried a 450i sm but I would assume those work fine, I have many > 450i PTP that work great. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Kurt Fankhauser < > lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, July 3, 2017 8:38:49 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > The original 450 hardware will max out at around 70mbps TCP. Even if you > have no traffic on it that is the limitation. I don't remember which > firmware it was but the 14.0 something sounds right and I have personally > gotten the 70mbps to a SM on a AP with 3 clients. > > Now the 450i AP basically the 70mbps cap is gone and you can get whatever > the link tests show (as long as your testing to an 450i SM). I > have two customers with 450i SM on a 450i AP and have seen well over > 125mbps TCP easy. Now that same AP talking to older 450SM's those SM's can > still only get 70mbps max. > > So basically what you need to do is put the 450i AP up where you need to > total AP capacity of more than 50-60mbps and then only use the 450i SM on > the clients that need more than the 50-70mbps. > > I have not tested speeds since I upgraded firmware to 15.1 so if a bug was > recently introduced I know nothing of it. > > On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> > wrote: > > Aaron demonstrated some throughput improvements with both NAT and bridge > mode back around 14.2 development. IIRC, they were able to get a little > over 70Mbps downlink in bridge mode on a standard 450 SM. Real TCP > throughput, not a link test. > > What I was seeing on some of our most heavily loaded 450 sectors is the AP > seemed to max out around 55Mbps downlink and 10-11k PPS. In that case I'm > thinking the issue was simply the PPS limit and not that the AP was limited > to 55Mbps. > > As far as the SM, I don't know. Perhaps a regression with 15.x. 15.0.x did > have some high-priority issues. > On 7/1/2017 2:25 PM, Craig Schmaderer wrote: > > Ok, I have tried to get cambium to publicly admit to this ever since I > started using 450 a few years ago. The current sm in no way can pass more > than about 50-55 mbs of real traffic. This has never been a real issue > however because I don't do those kind of speed plans. I have been waiting > for their new sm design to take care of this. If anyone disagrees with me I > would love to chat. (Really) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of > George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> <george.sko...@cbcast.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:01:22 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > > 14.2.1 has its own issues, mostly the high-priority bugs, but I thought > that would achieve 60+? > > I guess someone could try a 450i SM on 15.1 and see if it's any better. > That should rule out or confirm the CPU suspicion. > On 6/28/2017 6:53 PM, Ryan Ray wrote: > > That's about all I get on a 450 as well. I think it's CPU bound. > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Eric Muehleisen <ericm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > See attached. This is a 20mb SM. Again, it will burst up to 52 mb > <image001.jpg> > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote: > What QoS settings in the SM? > > Chris Wright > Network Administrator > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:36 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 ~50mbps cap > > Yes. Just yesterday tested a 450i AP (40mhz) with a 20mb 450 SM. Linktests > showed 137 x 58 but most we could burst to was 52 x 45. Both AP and SM are > on 15.1. > > I currently have a support ticket open for this as well as increased DFS > issues. > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Colin Stanners <cstann...@gmail.com> > wrote: > We setup a customer on a very lightly loaded 5ghz PMP450 AP and SM, 20mhz > channel, expecting them to burst up to 70mbit speeds for download; linktest > is reliably 85-90d and there's effectively no other usage. But we can't > seem to get over 50mbit speedtests. Has anyone else seen such issues? > > >
