>I think Mimosa said at one point they were adding a flexible non-synced >mode... but I don't know if that ever happened or not, and I could be >completely wrong, but as far as I can remember, >when I set ours up, there was >no non-synced option. They are also supposed to be adding ptmp to the B5c, if >I remember correctly.
This is non-synced mode is announced for the next release which should be there soon: http://help.mimosa.co/backhaul-firmware-roadmap >There are definitely some advantages to the ePMP (being less than half the >price, for one)... but a B5c is capable of a lot higher throughput and has >some nice features. one of the best things >about using ePMP for PTP links is >that we can just use the same radios for everything, so we always have plenty >on hand. Where performance is enough and latency does not hurt … On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: B5c is ptp sync (only?) and ePMP is ptp and ptmp sync or not, but I wanted to answer the last question at least. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote: But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a PTP link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across it. Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps on a 20mhz channel. 0 10.1.27.25 56 64 10ms 1 10.1.27.25 56 64 9ms 2 10.1.27.25 56 64 6ms 3 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms 4 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms 5 10.1.27.25 56 64 13ms 6 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms 7 10.1.27.25 56 64 7ms 8 10.1.27.25 56 64 11ms 9 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms 10 10.1.27.25 56 64 9ms sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms max-rtt=13ms I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is capable of a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able to run two separate channels and make changes without taking the link down... but latency isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP mode). On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing 7-9mbps > ping 172.16.10.178 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms 62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP product you get ~1ms Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340> Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343> 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt <matt.mailingli...@gmail.com <mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> > wrote: What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS? Throughput and latency? How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?
