Tim, Actually even in the 1x80FDD mode, the radio will do traffic split other than 50/50, which kind of makes it a unique animal.
one of the reason we did not feel the need to switch out the B11 for AF11x on the 1x80, cause due to traffic split, the B11's performance was coming very close to what the AF11x would do on the 56mhz channel duplex. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] > From: "Tim Hardy" <[email protected]> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:04:57 PM > 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 < [email protected] > 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 < [email protected] > >> 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: [email protected] >>>> From: "Tim Hardy" < [email protected] > >>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < [email protected] > >>>> 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 < [email protected] > 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 < [email protected] > >>>>> 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 < [email protected] > >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> From: "Mike Hammett" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>>>>>>>>> The Brothers WISP >>>>>>>>>> From: "Jason McKemie" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> 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 < [email protected] > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Define "better". >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>>>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> The Brothers WISP >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jason McKemie" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> -- >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
