AirMax Throughput Limitations

[cnr0616]

I was reading up on the throughput advertised for the AirMax products at 150Mbps. It looks like the AirMax Nanostation M has "2 X 10/100 BASE-TX (Cat. 5, RJ-45) Ethernet Interface" one for data, the other for poe. Isn't the maximum throughput for 100BASE-TX 100Mbps? Shouldn't the AirMax products come with 1Gbps Ethernet Inferfaces? Also what is the difference between the Nanostation M and Loco M? Thanks for the response.

[sxpert]

I was reading up on the throughput advertised for the AirMax products at 150Mbps. It looks like the AirMax Nanostation M has "2 X 10/100 BASE-TX (Cat. 5, RJ-45) Ethernet Interface" one for data, the other for poe. Isn't the maximum throughput for 100BASE-TX 100Mbps? Shouldn't the AirMax products come with 1Gbps Ethernet Inferfaces? Also what is the difference between the Nanostation M and Loco M? Thanks for the response.

there are 2 ethernet ports, but they're both active.
the "main" one is where the poe should come in from
the "aux" one is where you can connect another nanostation to daisy chain them without the need for another POE block

[Nom3rcy1337]

The Airmax Radios Run 150mbits half dublex like any other single radio device.

that means 100mbit one way 50 the other or 75/75mbit

[whitedot]

The Loco M isn't available yet.

[cnr0616]

I was talking about the wired limitations. If I use this product as a bridge in between two locations, wouldn't my wired connection cause a bottleneck since the max throughput for 100Base-TX is around 100Mbps. I'm talking throughput here, not bandwidth. Assuming I get 150Mbps via the Nanostation M, and my 1Gbps network won't take advantage of the 150Mbps throughput, since the Nanostation M is limited with a 100Base-TX connection, which tops out at around 100Mbps throughput. Did that explain it better?

[whitedot]

But you won't get 150Mbps in one direction with the Nanostation M, so the port won't limit it. As Nom3rcy1337 explained, the 150Mbps selling point is the maximum throughput in both directions at the same time.

[pawpaw]

The Airmax Radios Run 150mbits half dublex like any other single radio device.

that means 100mbit one way 50 the other or 75/75mbit

This is a contradiction. HDX is HDX, you can't combine them and call it total throughput. Ethernet has a potential aggregate throughput of 200M because it is FDX, it can xmit and recv 100M simultaneously, but this is not possible with a HDX connection. By this equation the total throughput is 100M or 75M.

Somebody from ubnt should correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that the radio is capable of 150M HDX throughput. That 150M capability (potential) is in the radio, not the ethernet port. Meaning 2 wireless stations could transfer data at 150M.

Since ubnt is touting 150M+ TCP/IP throughput and the M5 goes to MCS15 it requires a 40Mhz channel to get "150+Mbs real TCP/IP throughput." Dropping to a 20Mhz channel makes this claim impossible even if overhead was non-existent. Performance over distance is degraded more by 40Mhz channels than 20Mhz channels.

So in reality the 100M ethernet bottleneck would be isolated to very few cases since the average environment in which these systems will be deployed will make it impossible to get peak performance from MCS15 at 40Mhz; and very few users will ever actually need 150M. So the 100M ethernet will be more than sufficient in most cases.

But as I said, if I'm way off on this, please correct me.

[sakita]

:icon_wink:Another example of a question that will *never* die...

http://www.ubnt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12830&highlight=duplex

...if I remember correctly gigabit *might* be looked at in the future, just a sec - let me search - ah yes... here it is...

http://www.ubnt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15376&highlight=gigabit

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

This is a contradiction. HDX is HDX, you can't combine them and call it total throughput. Ethernet has a potential aggregate throughput of 200M because it is FDX, it can xmit and recv 100M simultaneously, but this is not possible with a HDX connection. By this equation the total throughput is 100M or 75M.

Somebody from ubnt should correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that the radio is capable of 150M HDX throughput. That 150M capability (potential) is in the radio, not the ethernet port. Meaning 2 wireless stations could transfer data at 150M.

Since ubnt is touting 150M+ TCP/IP throughput and the M5 goes to MCS15 it requires a 40Mhz channel to get "150+Mbs real TCP/IP throughput." Dropping to a 20Mhz channel makes this claim impossible even if overhead was non-existent. Performance over distance is degraded more by 40Mhz channels than 20Mhz channels.

So in reality the 100M ethernet bottleneck would be isolated to very few cases since the average environment in which these systems will be deployed will make it impossible to get peak performance from MCS15 at 40Mhz; and very few users will ever actually need 150M. So the 100M ethernet will be more than sufficient in most cases.

But as I said, if I'm way off on this, please correct me.


Hello,

Our 150+ Mbps claim is indeed 75Mbps in each direction at the same time.

Thanks,

Mike

[kijoma]

hi,

the word you are looking for is "aggregate" i think :)

as he said, Ethernet does 200 Mbps aggregate (both directions), airmax does 150 .. it fits :)

[pawpaw]

Hello,

Our 150+ Mbps claim is indeed 75Mbps in each direction at the same time.

Thanks,

Mike

This changes things considerably for me at least. Are you saying that these are FDX (full duplex) not HDX? I keep seeing "at the same time" which implies FDX but as I understand it there is only a single radio making it impossible to have FDX links.

[Jayson]

Agregate HDX not FDX.

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

Agregate HDX not FDX.

Correct.

Thanks,

Mike

[pawpaw]

Been reading the other thread. The problem is that your claim is 150M "throughput" when in fact it is 75M "throughput" because that is the true HDX number. Of course that number can fluctuate since it is the TCP/IP payload and not the link rate max.

Now your marketing spindoctors can call it what they like, but I've been in telecommunications for 20 years and nobody is going to think it means anything other than one way speed in a HDX system or 2 way speed in a FDX system. At least not without the caveat that it is "aggregate" ptp throughput.

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

Been reading the other thread. The problem is that your claim is 150M "throughput" when in fact it is 75M "throughput" because that is the true HDX number. Of course that number can fluctuate since it is the TCP/IP payload and not the link rate max.

Now your marketing spindoctors can call it what they like, but I've been in telecommunications for 20 years and nobody is going to think it means anything other than one way speed in a HDX system or 2 way speed in a FDX system. At least not without the caveat that it is "aggregate" ptp throughput.

Hello,

We have never not said that 150mbps TCP IPwas not aggregate throughput. All of our testing is done with aggregate throughput. Single direction through put can get up to 87Mbps TCP/IP in one direction (limited by the ethernet port). But passing traffic in both directions at the same time can yeald 150+ (I have seen and shown at our conferences 175Mbps TCP/IP, passing traffic in both directions, aggregate)

Thanks,

Mike

Thanks,

Mike