I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer and attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might help to see a comparison of supplied specs.
Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on manufacturer supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex and considered everything on a path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. That would take too long and its not the point of this post. Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed data)and this is what I found: To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. 80 MHz channel plan radio UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput values listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio. Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at the highest modulation. Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins. The 80 MHz channel plan radio has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth. SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER > On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers > vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = less overall > throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com > <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the > AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com > <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote: > This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data sheets: > > A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps Full > Duplex at 1024QAM. > An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full Duplex. > > What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? > > -Adam > > > > On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, >> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something like >> an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not even >> as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, if >> spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get similar >> throughput to either of these radios with anything else. >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net >> <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote: >> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >> >>> 256 QAM radio. >> >> One should take that with a grain of salt !.... >> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. >> How is pans out in reality is questionable ! >> >> :) >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net <http://www.snappytelecom.net/> >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> >> >> From: "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com >> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz >> spectrum in my area. >> >> >> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 >> QAM radio. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com >> <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com >> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> More dependable, predictable, etc. >> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that >> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. >> >> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 >> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd >> like to hear if you've had a different experience. >> >> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net >> <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: >> Define "better". >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com >> <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <Af@af.afmug.com >> <mailto:Af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >> guidance as to which has worked better? >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
