It's been a week now... why is 3.5.6 not available on the cloud cnMaestro yet!?
Yeah, I don't understand why it's not there on the same day it's posted here? Maybe it's complicated to get on cnMaestro... but I can't understand why that would be?
I also do appreciate that it's "all hands on deck" getting the ePMP3K and Force300's prime-time ready ASAP. But from our pespective, I mean, even one WISP, rolling it out to just one of their average towers, 4 sectors, 100 SM's.. that's a ridiculously amount of unnecessary work without automation. :(
It's been a week now... why is 3.5.6 not available on the cloud cnMaestro yet!?
Yeah, I don't understand why it's not there on the same day it's posted here? Maybe it's complicated to get on cnMaestro... but I can't understand why that would be? I also do appreciate that it's "all hands on deck" getting the ePMP3K and Force300's prime-time ready. But from our pespective, I mean, even one WISP, rolling it out to just one of their average towers, 4 sectors, 100 SM's.. that's a ridiculously amount of unnecessary work without automation. :(
I assume that pushing out a firmware release is nearly as simple as the stand alone version of cnMaestro... which litterally takes like 2 clicks to upload a new firmware. I'm frustrated that Cambium needs to be reminded EVERY TIME a new release comes out to put it up as a cloud option.
I’m not sure this is a 3.5.6 issue at all, maybe or maybe not. I have a force 200 at my house running 3.5.2 and when I try to upgrade to 3.5.6 as SOON as I click the update button, it tells me to reboot the radio 1st. I’ve rebooted it, and I’ve power cycled it - and the same results. So I go to the tools -> software upgrade, I select the software, and the instant I try to upgrade, it tells me to reboot.
It feels like it’s a 3.5.2 issue, or a memory issue, or something like that - but I thought I’d ask for suggestions here first.
I actually hadn't tried this via cnMaestro, that's a good idea, I will try that. This SM is a PTP link to my acreage, so it's not part of our 'customer' network, so I've never added it to cnMaestro (just didn't want to clutter things with any non-customer links). BUT, that's a good idea, that'll probably work. :)
I had that too with an earlier version. Upgraded fine via cnmaestro. Or are you getting this message in cnmaestro too?
OK @CWB, cnMaestro worked fine to update my test SM from 3.5.2 to 3.5.6. cnMaestro is usually how we upgrade things anyway, although a 'one-of' unit like this is essentially like a 'test radio' on the bench in a way, so it wasn't part of our normal ncMaestro network. However - that worked, so thank you. :)
I ran into this error message a few times, while upgrading from 3.5.1 to 3.5.5 or 3.5.6 everytime this error came up I was able to resolve it by rebooting the affected device and trying again.
In general 5ms frames will give you more throughput than 2.5ms frames, but longer latency due to the longer frame size. It's up to you which is a priority. If you want more throughput, but are willing to deal with higher latency go with 5ms frames, but if you want shorter latency and are willing to sacrifice some throughput then go with 2.5ms frames.
A community member posted his real world comparison between both frame sizes in a post here, but this is from 2017 so performance may have since improved.
Another consideration is synchronization. If you make any changes to frame size on one AP it must be done to all others in order to maintain proper synchronization. This is also the case with PMP450 if you have any PMP450 in your network that you're synchronizing your ePMP with.
Just a question what is everyone running for frame size 2.5ms vs 5ms ?
which is better ?
2.5ms provides lower latency but you lose about 10% performance, and it's only available for 20/40MHz channel widths, and is really intended to be used to sync between PMP450 and PMP100/FSK systems.
5ms provides slightly higher latency (like 5-10ms more) but gives you a +10% performance boost, and it's available for all channel widths.
We typically use flexible/variable if it's in the middle of nowhere and we don't care about sync... and we use 5ms with 2.4GHz sync'd systems (as we typically use 10MHz channel widths).