Ubiquiti hasn't figured it out for Airmax devices, no. For AirFiber products it works great.
-Ty -Ty On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
