Cambium figured out sync no problem. Mimosa figured out sync no problem. Doesn't match up with Canopy...but it's a step in the right direction.
Ubnt can't figure it out for one reason or another. It's probably safe to say that they're the ones that need to do the big push since they're a HUGE part of the market. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected]> wrote: > You know what would be really nice to see ......... > > The day when one can use different mfg radios, on the same tower, using > gps sync, and have them all get along .... > > Would actually create a bit of a revolution in the industry across the > board ! > > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Friday, November 6, 2015 12:19:58 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X > > I was thinking the same thing on the noise/interference issue. This has > nothing to do with the efficiency by design. > > > > I have never seen a Mimosa avoid a channel because the other radio is > using it. That kind of makes no sense. > > > > Both radios have big firmware upgrades coming. The AF5x is supposed to > have split channels, the Mimosas a lower latency and better handling of the > Auto-Everything feature with multiple Mimosa radios on the same tower. > > > > Right now for us, the split channel and auto-feature are keeping things > running in excessively high interference levels. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Englhardt > *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 9:33 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X > > > > > > >Just a few FYI comments:- > > > > > >the efficiency of PHY layer is greatly dependent on the noise and > interference factors. > > > > This is the case with every radio. While there are differences how radios > perform with interference. > > > > >One can 'tune' auto everything mode, by manually locking out channels > (i.e. channels in use by other equipment of yours). > > If I am correct Mimosa plans to autonegotiate used channels with radios on > the same l2 network. > > > > >There is another release for the PTP which is due soon 1.3 (I believe) > which is supposed to have some more >interesting > improvements....including a reduction in latency... > > > > This will be great. Latency will be an issue when there are chained links. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Stefan Englhardt" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Friday, November 6, 2015 9:24:47 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X > > > > >I’ve got both radios running in different areas. The Mimosa radios are > pretty proprietary in they are actually running about 87.5% of the PHY > layer for throughput. > > > > This is with 8ms Frame size I guess. We use only 2 or 4 as latency adds up > with multiple links. > > > > >At that level, I really don’t think there is that much difference between > the radios. The advantage in the world I live in is that spectrum > interference is constantly changing and that the combination of split > frequencies and auto-everything both make my life easier and seems to > maximize thought. > > > > Auto-Everything still does not work for me. Still does some wired > decisions. At some links the background spectrum scan still shows the own > radio as interferer. Using this as information for channel selection does > not help. > > > > >The AF5x radios however, have 10, 30 and 50MHz channel options whereas > the Mimosa have an 80MHz channel option. Finding the spectrum to maximize > the radios is the real key to optimizing the AF5x and they give you 3 > distinct options. With the Mimosa’s I don’t worry about it, they search > all the spectrum and make the changes in terms of channels and channel > widths. > > > > We’re very limited in high power spectrum (only 120MHz with 36db EiRP) so > I want to squeeze every bit out of it. This is why I look at the AF5X for > some places. > > > > > > >What will be interesting is how both radios perform after the next > firmware releases. Both products are expecting big things. > > > > I guess you’re talkin PTMP? Would love to see this. > > > > I see both Radios have a great hardware base and have the possibility to > get better with Firmware. > > > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Stefan Englhardt > *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 12:31 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X > > > > > > >You're looking at the difference in code rates between 256QAM 3/4 code > rate (MCS8) and 256QAM 5/6 code rate (MCS9)? All >things being equal in > the same size TDD 40 MHz channel, of course the MCS9 radio will have a > greater bps/Hz. > > > > No. The AF5X claims to give higher performance with (8x) 256QAM compared > to MCS9 (256QAM 5/6) of an .ac radio. AF5X is no .ac radio so they seem to > have a different amount of subcarriers, less overhead or other modulation > scheme? > > > > > http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airFiber/AF5X-Link-Calculator-Updated-Download/m-p/1255928#M20955 > > > > >Talking about the bps/Hz for a single stream, the specs for 802.11ac say > that an MCS8 channel 40 MHz wide will be 162 to 180 Mbps, while a MCS9 > channel 40 MHz wide will be 180 to 200 Mbps. > > > > >I am not sure the two can be compared directly side by side thanks to > the B5's split frequency modes of operation. They can be >better compared > head to head if you're using a single fixed TDD frequency (like, 5760 > center channel). > > Yes. I took 40MHz to be fair as 802.11ac does MCS9 only with channels > greater equal 40MHz. And I am talking real IP capacity not physical. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anyone who have them both running did an unbiased comparison? > > We’ve several B5 links running and are quite happy with them. > > Good 11ac radios in a very neat package. > > > > The AF5x on the other side is a custom designed radio which seems to > > squeeze more mbits out of smaller channels. In a 40MHz Channel I see > > an aggregated thruput of 320 Mbit/s with the B5 with 4ms framesize at > > MCS9 (256QAM). > > Looking at the AF5X (inofficial) link table should do 390 Mbit/s aggregated > > with 2ms framesize. So they promise to do higher bandwidth with lower > > latency in a 40MHz Channel (at smaller channels the difference is higher > > as .ac do only MCS8). > > > > Is the AF5X the better radio with limited spectrum while the B5 can do more > > with enough spectrum available? > > > > I’ve sites where I ran out of spectrum (ETSI) so I plan to put AF5X there. > > > > > > >
