Relative to a Rocket M5AC PTP setup, or Mikrotik 802.11ac boards & good quality dishes (Jirous 32dB high performance), it is more expensive.
However, as a 256QAM radio when compared to a PTP600 or PTP650 connectorized, it's much less expensive. I guess the question cannot really be answered yet, since the people who are beta testing MIMOSA radios are still under NDA. When they're available to purchase we'll know how they perform in a fixed TDD channel vs. much less expensive competing radios. On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > I operate in suburban Chicago and touch at least 12 WISPs across my > footprint. I've seen noise. One site has a -75 noise floor on my sectors > (it actually even goes up to -50 once we go above 5850). > > I'd imagine doing anything other than their auto-everything will cripple > your experience, especially the simultaneous DFS channels. > > Might as well get Mikrotik or Ubiquiti at that point. > > Might want to step up the dish size or quality. Check out Jirous dishes. > They've given me some excellent SNR. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" <af@afmug.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 4:01:42 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance > > Because in an urban environment frequently the widest available "clean" > channel you can find is a single 20 MHz of spectrum between two locations. > All of the FDD-like features of the Mimosa radio are useless if one of the > channels you want to use has a -82 noise floor. > > Very different use scenario for city vs. rural. > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > >> Why would you pull half of the spark plugs on a Ferrari? >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" <af@afmug.com> >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:03:18 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >> >> I wonder how the performance of the Mimosa 256QAM product will compare in >> a 20 MHz wide, TDD channel when used with the same antennas, head-to-head >> against the Mikrotik board. In a scenario not using any of the special >> frequency auto selecting features of the Mimosa/Quantenna chipset. >> >> I have in mind a setup with a pair of the Jirous 32dB high performance >> type antennas with a metal enclosure on the rear. >> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Stefan Englhardt via Af <af@afmug.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The Sextant did not work for us at all. The QRT-5 has a quite good >>> Antenna for it’s size. >>> >>> But you cant upgrade/repair them as they use special screws you cant >>> open without damaging >>> >>> them. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Mars-Antennas have a metal housing so there is some shielding to the >>> back. We don’t like >>> >>> the outdoor-pigtails/connectors as with the rocket / ePMP-Force / ePMP >>> Sectors. Just one >>> >>> Ethernet leaving the housing to the bottom is the solution we see the >>> least problems. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias....@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Mike >>> Hammett via Af >>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:40 >>> *An:* af@afmug.com >>> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> >>> >>> I remember when they announced their new "high gain CPE" the Sextant... >>> which was still smaller than the smallest CPE I used. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From: *"Glen Waldrop via Af" <af@afmug.com> >>> *To: *af@afmug.com >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37:54 AM >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> >>> >>> I can't get over the small gain MT uses. >>> >>> It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and >>> small antennas rather than the reverse. >>> >>> If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is >>> preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that >>> set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. >>> >>> I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and >>> small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> *From:* Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com> >>> >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> >>> >>> The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. >>> Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From: *"Stefan Englhardt via Af" <af@afmug.com> >>> *To: *af@afmug.com >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the >>> same dimensions as >>> >>> the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. >>> >>> >>> >>> We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The >>> SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. >>> >>> The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small >>> footprint. We use these as >>> >>> Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. >>> >>> >>> >>> The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the >>> 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. >>> >>> The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT >>> Performance. >>> >>> The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the >>> RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. >>> >>> >>> >>> MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with >>> 11n/a. >>> >>> >>> >>> SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always >>> with MT you’ve to betatest >>> >>> HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias....@afmug.com >>> <af-bounces+ste=genias....@afmug.com>] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway >>> via Af >>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 >>> *An:* af@afmug.com >>> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeeeeaaaaa, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know >>> what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features >>> as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 >>> bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of >>> the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. >>> You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an >>> AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s >>> tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product >>> with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled >>> it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t >>> replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or >>> less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we >>> are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That >>> numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video >>> streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of >>> connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is >>> why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with >>> less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rory >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless....@afmug.com >>> <af-bounces+rory=triadwireless....@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *That One >>> Guy via Af >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> >>> >>> :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by >>> whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af <af@afmug.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios >>> are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. >>> >>> For the second one, "ubntboys" (at least the informed ones) don't run >>> airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) >>> >>> Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer >>> SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com >>> >>> On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: >>> >>> does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af <af@afmug.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC >>> PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) >>> >>> Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer >>> SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com >>> >>> On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: >>> >>> The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... >>> >>> We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so >>> it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've >>> been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. >>> � >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire....@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh >>> Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as >>> airprism tech >>> >>> they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product >>> line... some bugs are showing in the software >>> >>> Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer >>> SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com >>> >>> On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: >>> >>> These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af <af@afmug.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready >>> for primetime.� I�m waiting. >>> >>> � >>> >>> Rory >>> >>> � >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless....@afmug.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *TJ Trout via Af >>> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 6:39 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance >>> >>> � >>> >>> How are the rocket AC's performing for you guys? Throughput? Bugs? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
