Sometimes that’s all that is available - otherwise why would they have the option?
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote: > > Why use the FDD option? It’s still better to use the 2x80 mode and let it > dynamically adjust where the priority is. > > Rory > > From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] On > Behalf Of Tim Hardy > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:05 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote: > > Something is off in your Mimosa # .... see picture attached.. > > Respectfully, > > 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: "Tim Hardy" <thardy...@gmail.com <mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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/> > Error! Filename not specified. <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>Error! > Filename not specified. > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>Error! Filename > not specified. > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>Error! > Filename not specified. <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > Error! Filename not specified. <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>Error! > Filename not specified. > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>Error! Filename > not specified. <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > Error! Filename not specified. > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>Error! Filename not specified. > > > <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/> > Error! Filename not specified. <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>Error! > Filename not specified. > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>Error! Filename > not specified. > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>Error! > Filename not specified. <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > Error! Filename not specified. <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>Error! > Filename not specified. > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>Error! Filename > not specified. <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > Error! Filename not specified. > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>Error! Filename not specified. > > > <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 <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
