Production , no.... alpha/beta, yes..... ( their A5 product). 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: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> > To: "af" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 12:52:50 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X > To be fair, Mimosa doesn't have synced PTMP yet either... or unsynced, for > that > matter. > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Josh Luthman < [email protected] > > wrote: >> Right sorry. I'm on the subject of PTMP products. >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Ty Featherling < [email protected] > >> wrote: >>> 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] ] 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.
