I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if > it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double > that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with > settings on a B11, so I could be wrong. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> > wrote: > >> >> Something is off in your Mimosa # .... see picture attached.. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Tim Hardy" <thardy...@gmail.com> >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> 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> >> 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> >>> 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> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>>>> >>>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> >>>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <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> >>>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <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> 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> >>>>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <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 >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > -- > 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
