http://mimosa.co/home/Products/Access-Point/A5-90.html

Inspiration for Mikrotik? MU-MIMO is future and place for us to be able to compete with Big Providers (DSL, optics...)

http://mimosa.co/home/Products/Access-Point/A5-90.html

Inspiration for Mikrotik? MU-MIMO is future and place for us to be able to compete with Big Providers (DSL, optics...)

Yes. And GPS antenna integrated in the housing with GPS Sync. It's still time as Mimosa will not deliver before late Summer and I guess it will be later. But they will deliver as they did with B5.

Did anybody tested mimosa b5?

Did anybody tested mimosa b5?

yes.

Did anybody tested mimosa b5?

yes.

And how did it compare to others?

Did anybody tested mimosa b5?

yes.

And how did it compare to others?

Great. Think of 2 .ac cards working with the same dualpol antenna. So you can do 2x20/40/80 channels in different bands.
Software needs some improvements so not all features work, but they are stable. Additionally you can sync them so you can reuse frequencies on the same tower. Working with 3 links on 2x40 Channels needs the same spectrum than operating 2 MT/UBNT Links with only one 40 Mhz Channel each. So you get a lot more bandwidth at a tower.

Great. Think of 2 .ac cards working with the same dualpol antenna. So you can do 2x20/40/80 channels in different bands.
Software needs some improvements so not all features work, but they are stable. Additionally you can sync them so you can reuse frequencies on the same tower. Working with 3 links on 2x40 Channels needs the same spectrum than operating 2 MT/UBNT Links with only one 40 Mhz Channel each. So you get a lot more bandwidth at a tower.

U have some screenshots of the link and throughput?

Great. Think of 2 .ac cards working with the same dualpol antenna. So you can do 2x20/40/80 channels in different bands.
Software needs some improvements so not all features work, but they are stable. Additionally you can sync them so you can reuse frequencies on the same tower. Working with 3 links on 2x40 Channels needs the same spectrum than operating 2 MT/UBNT Links with only one 40 Mhz Channel each. So you get a lot more bandwidth at a tower.

U have some screenshots of the link and throughput?

This is a MT-Forum so it might be not the right place

This is a MT-Forum so it might be not the right place

U can send me a PM? Plz with screenshots?

Enviado desde mi LG-D855 usando Tapatalk 2

This is a MT-Forum so it might be not the right place

U can send me a PM? Plz with screenshots?

Enviado desde mi LG-D855 usando Tapatalk 2

Let us know when you get the screenshots ?

Why, it is inspiration for MT to make devices better....and also on ubnt forum there are topics and it is not censored. So It could be great to post screens. What throughoutput you can get on 40mhz channel, what is distance, noise...thanks...

mimosa.png

Put more info! Plz! Distance? Is the mimosa with conector?
Can u upload a picture of a bandwitdh test ??

We installed our first Mimosa A5 last week and hooked now some 35 SXT's on it.
Last night I finally could do some test with several clients each capable of 25mbs (limit by simple queue in central)

Allthough compared to the Omnitik previously running 25 clients that could not produce more than some 30-35Mb aggregated download in the same position, the same clients, and a relative close channel as the Omnitik I could now get some 65Mb aggregated download max from the A5.
But still several clients lost their top speeds although not that drastic as on the OmniTik.
More important (for streaming video content, the biggest demand nowadays) is that a speed test done with one tcp stream only saw much better sustained throughputt as with the Omnitik. In the Omnitik the 3rd client using a single tcp stream already started to bother same from the previous two. On the Mimosa I could run up to 5 clients single tcp streams of between 7 and 15Mb (depending on the clients) and still saw no effects on the previous started clients. At the same time other live traffic was around up to maximum aggregated 60-70Mbps download.

Good, very good, but not very impressive so far. I'd hoped for a bit more. But ok, this is 802.11 with 200 antennas in a 300 meter circle and basically all 5Ghz frequencies in use!

I have to mention some things and Mikrotik can learn;

- Software/firmware of Mimosa is not matured. Several functions don't work or are not available yet.
- The GUI looks sleek but lacks a lot of info we can get on the Mikrotik winbox platform. But on the wireless Mimosa shows us a bit more info than MT. (CCQ, signal, S/N on a per stream basis. Or can we with MT too?)
- Mimoso AP lets clients (=Mikrotik SXT!) communicate on one chain only if spectrum is poor and when it becomes better uses 40Mhz again. MT cannot do that, only automatic setting is possible with MT.
- Channel hopping. The Mimosa can choose to work on another channel. In the present setup with all the MT clients I have to set an accordingly wide 'scan range' so clients can follow. I am wondering how that will work out when the channel is really swapped. Don't know how soon the Mimosa clients would follow. The feature initself can be usefull in changin environments. Could MT do something like it?
- Spectral scan on both the ac AP (=A5) as well as the clients! When will we see this with MT?? A great help in finding the best frequencies and/or interference issues.
- The Mimosa AP works so far in 'interop' mode, which means basic 802.11ac protocol. No TDMA. And still all 35 clients see hardly any disconnects. I tried that with MT some time ago and even with only a handfull MT radios in our full interference environment with hundreds of SXT's I could not get a proper connetion running.... Switch my MT AP networks to 802.11 and I almost inmediately loose lots of station and a lot of wining clients on the phone....
- Winbox still rocks! Mimosa is all http(s) and you need to refresh your browser regurlarly and sometimes you think you are working on a unit just to find out that unit already became in-accesible some while ago. Winbox would already have let you know by throwing you out! I just hate html base management!
- We are end of 2016 and although Mimosa already promised MU-MIMO 2 years ago, it's still not working. It has to come from new firmware but not yet there....

Conclusion; Mimosa has big promises. Some of theme (the 'easy' ones. Like a better chipset and bigger cpu and better antennas) are there. A lot of the promises still have to materialise thogh. As long as that is the case MT has time to keep up and come with newer, better radios and systems too.

I am not going elsewhere because I don't like Mikrotik. Still love it but there seems little light on the wireless horizon for MT where we as a WISP need to move forward in an ever increasingly disturbed network. So I am trying Mimosa and now need to purchase their CPE units in some bigger cuantities and hope soon they have MU-MIMO working together with their GPS synchronized radios....

It's just like some newly elected heads of states... lots of promises but only time will tell how many of them will indeed come true.... I hope Mimosa wins!

@WirelessRudy
I don't believe Mimosa will do it on the long run. They don't fulfill their promises for long now. Where is their sector, where is TDMA, where is mumimo, where is gps sync in ptmp ? They never will make this product's work as promised.

Instead of using their A5 I installed 3 Mantbox 15s. This is cheaper and gives more aggregate throughput. And I put an omni of another product on top for migration.

BTW I hate this American marketing. They all do it. Metrolinq still has no stable firmware. They sell products you need to power cycle.

We installed our first Mimosa A5 last week and hooked now some 35 SXT's on it.
Last night I finally could do some test with several clients each capable of 25mbs (limit by simple queue in central)

Allthough compared to the Omnitik previously running 25 clients that could not produce more than some 30-35Mb aggregated download in the same position, the same clients, and a relative close channel as the Omnitik I could now get some 65Mb aggregated download max from the A5.
But still several clients lost their top speeds although not that drastic as on the OmniTik.
More important (for streaming video content, the biggest demand nowadays) is that a speed test done with one tcp stream only saw much better sustained throughputt as with the Omnitik. In the Omnitik the 3rd client using a single tcp stream already started to bother same from the previous two. On the Mimosa I could run up to 5 clients single tcp streams of between 7 and 15Mb (depending on the clients) and still saw no effects on the previous started clients. At the same time other live traffic was around up to maximum aggregated 60-70Mbps download.

Good, very good, but not very impressive so far. I'd hoped for a bit more. But ok, this is 802.11 with 200 antennas in a 300 meter circle and basically all 5Ghz frequencies in use!

I have to mention some things and Mikrotik can learn;

- Software/firmware of Mimosa is not matured. Several functions don't work or are not available yet.
- The GUI looks sleek but lacks a lot of info we can get on the Mikrotik winbox platform. But on the wireless Mimosa shows us a bit more info than MT. (CCQ, signal, S/N on a per stream basis. Or can we with MT too?)
- Mimoso AP lets clients (=Mikrotik SXT!) communicate on one chain only if spectrum is poor and when it becomes better uses 40Mhz again. MT cannot do that, only automatic setting is possible with MT.
- Channel hopping. The Mimosa can choose to work on another channel. In the present setup with all the MT clients I have to set an accordingly wide 'scan range' so clients can follow. I am wondering how that will work out when the channel is really swapped. Don't know how soon the Mimosa clients would follow. The feature initself can be usefull in changin environments. Could MT do something like it?
- Spectral scan on both the ac AP (=A5) as well as the clients! When will we see this with MT?? A great help in finding the best frequencies and/or interference issues.
- The Mimosa AP works so far in 'interop' mode, which means basic 802.11ac protocol. No TDMA. And still all 35 clients see hardly any disconnects. I tried that with MT some time ago and even with only a handfull MT radios in our full interference environment with hundreds of SXT's I could not get a proper connetion running.... Switch my MT AP networks to 802.11 and I almost inmediately loose lots of station and a lot of wining clients on the phone....
- Winbox still rocks! Mimosa is all http(s) and you need to refresh your browser regurlarly and sometimes you think you are working on a unit just to find out that unit already became in-accesible some while ago. Winbox would already have let you know by throwing you out! I just hate html base management!
- We are end of 2016 and although Mimosa already promised MU-MIMO 2 years ago, it's still not working. It has to come from new firmware but not yet there....

Conclusion; Mimosa has big promises. Some of theme (the 'easy' ones. Like a better chipset and bigger cpu and better antennas) are there. A lot of the promises still have to materialise thogh. As long as that is the case MT has time to keep up and come with newer, better radios and systems too.

I am not going elsewhere because I don't like Mikrotik. Still love it but there seems little light on the wireless horizon for MT where we as a WISP need to move forward in an ever increasingly disturbed network. So I am trying Mimosa and now need to purchase their CPE units in some bigger cuantities and hope soon they have MU-MIMO working together with their GPS synchronized radios....

It's just like some newly elected heads of states... lots of promises but only time will tell how many of them will indeed come true.... I hope Mimosa wins!

@WirelessRudy
thanks for sharing
I am interested why are there on mimosa a5c 4 N-connectors. Did you connect there 4x4 antenna? or I can just turn off 2 connectors and left only 2?

@WirelessRudy
I don't believe Mimosa will do it on the long run. They don't fulfill their promises for long now. Where is their sector, where is TDMA, where is mumimo, where is gps sync in ptmp ? They never will make this product's work as promised.

Instead of using their A5 I installed 3 Mantbox 15s. This is cheaper and gives more aggregate throughput. And I put an omni of another product on top for migration.

BTW I hate this American marketing. They all do it. Metrolinq still has no stable firmware. They sell products you need to power cycle.

Partially agree. They made a lot of promises that so far not delivered. And indeed Metrolinq also has some issues still to solve. We have 2 links of them running. 1x 300 mtrs and 1 x 375 meters. In heavy rain the drop but that was to be expected.
Apart from that we have the shortest link still regularly dropping. Several times a week. Tried several firmware versions to no avail. But the other link is much more solid. An occasional drop in the last week. Maybe we have a unit with an issue. I think we will have to swap the unit to see... But apart from these drops (our failover with a MT Netmetal-Jirious Dome works fine. Failover within a second.The MT link is not as stable in ping. Latency is 4 times as high as the Metrolinq and the jitter is also poor at times. (Much more variation.)
Apart from these occasional issues we are happy with the Metrolinqs. They have an 0-1ms latency and througputt into the GBpms if needed. Both impossible with MT.

In regard of Mimosa, yes a lot of their promises are not materialized (yet?).
But I put a lot of questions towards them in their forum/blog so we see with what anwers they come up with.

If only MT would please improve their wireless we wouldn't have to go and try something different!
(Maybe they would come with MU-MIMO soon? I saw a presentation last year already explaining the advantage on one of their MUM's. So if they are smart enought they already should have picket that up to start working on it.....)

Maybe we users should push harder on MT to work on their wireless platform!

@WirelessRudy
I don't believe Mimosa will do it on the long run. They don't fulfill their promises for long now. Where is their sector, where is TDMA, where is mumimo, where is gps sync in ptmp ? They never will make this product's work as promised.

Instead of using their A5 I installed 3 Mantbox 15s. This is cheaper and gives more aggregate throughput. And I put an omni of another product on top for migration.

BTW I hate this American marketing. They all do it. Metrolinq still has no stable firmware. They sell products you need to power cycle.

Partially agree. They made a lot of promises that so far not delivered. And indeed Metrolinq also has some issues still to solve. We have 2 links of them running. 1x 300 mtrs and 1 x 375 meters. In heavy rain the drop but that was to be expected.
Apart from that we have the shortest link still regularly dropping. Several times a week. Tried several firmware versions to no avail. But the other link is much more solid. An occasional drop in the last week. Maybe we have a unit with an issue. I think we will have to swap the unit to see... But apart from these drops (our failover with a MT Netmetal-Jirious Dome works fine. Failover within a second.The MT link is not as stable in ping. Latency is 4 times as high as the Metrolinq and the jitter is also poor at times. (Much more variation.)
Apart from these occasional issues we are happy with the Metrolinqs. They have an 0-1ms latency and througputt into the GBpms if needed. Both impossible with MT.

In regard of Mimosa, yes a lot of their promises are not materialized (yet?).
But I put a lot of questions towards them in their forum/blog so we see with what anwers they come up with.

If only MT would please improve their wireless we wouldn't have to go and try something different!
(Maybe they would come with MU-MIMO soon? I saw a presentation last year already explaining the advantage on one of their MUM's. So if they are smart enought they already should have picket that up to start working on it.....)

Maybe we users should push harder on MT to work on their wireless platform!

We've also heard from other Metrolinq Users. Firmware is unstable. So apart from 60GHz Problems (which are expectable and well known) they are buggy, yet.

Dont know the strategy of MT towards Wisps but I see no progress with wireless for a very long time now. I guess they wait until Atheros does something they just have to build their platform around. If this does not happen they just server the normal AP-Market (which might be bigger).

Maybe 2017/2018 are the years where most Wisps will leave the wifi-path and MT just does not want to take the plunge towards RF-Development.

We see TDD-LTE coming, we see 450 platform with big numbers and we see an announcement from UBNT for a new development from their Airfiber-Team. And we see Wisps do Fiber or DSL Deployments. We invest in DSL at the moment and build small cells for high performance.

@ste
That's my feeling towards Mikrotik; They don't spend too much time/resources on wifi since they aim at a low-medium segment WISP market. Like in Asia, Africa and the South America's.
On the more heavier used and higher profiled Europe and North America together with the Far East (China, Taiwan, Japan) they are a marginal player I think. But they still make good money in those relative lower profiled markets where an OmniTik or Netmetal with loads of SXT of LHG (These are good!) antenna still can make cheap ran networks. Easy money for MT!

Apart from that the concentrate more on the router market. Here big bugs are to be made!

Hopefully they indeed wait for some new developments in Wifi / chipset and if not I'll guess many in Europe/North America will go for another brand. Which one it is going to be....?
Fibre is more and more rolled out but for the countrie side, even if crowded, in many countries not feasible. Just too expensive.
LTE is a good alternative but very expensive. I contacted a firm to give me some prices of an enrolment in our region and with our present subscriptions it would take me 4-6 years to earn back the plain investment in hardware! I don't see how to make money on it and the system still comes with limitations. Licensed frequencie or not, LTE or not, to serve more than 500 users from one tower is hard... And with a good system we need to serve a couple of thousands! How is that in respect to available spectrum????

I recently red some new wifi development that might help us; http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-scientists ... er-1577845
Seems not to be hard to implement and thus cheap and would push present wifi another couple of years into the future.... (But then again, it looks something like Mimoso is trying to do with their GPS sync mode...)

@ste
That's my feeling towards Mikrotik; They don't spend too much time/resources on wifi since they aim at a low-medium segment WISP market. Like in Asia, Africa and the South America's.
On the more heavier used and higher profiled Europe and North America together with the Far East (China, Taiwan, Japan) they are a marginal player I think. But they still make good money in those relative lower profiled markets where an OmniTik or Netmetal with loads of SXT of LHG (These are good!) antenna still can make cheap ran networks. Easy money for MT!

Apart from that the concentrate more on the router market. Here big bugs are to be made!

Hopefully they indeed wait for some new developments in Wifi / chipset and if not I'll guess many in Europe/North America will go for another brand. Which one it is going to be....?
Fibre is more and more rolled out but for the countrie side, even if crowded, in many countries not feasible. Just too expensive.
LTE is a good alternative but very expensive. I contacted a firm to give me some prices of an enrolment in our region and with our present subscriptions it would take me 4-6 years to earn back the plain investment in hardware! I don't see how to make money on it and the system still comes with limitations. Licensed frequencie or not, LTE or not, to serve more than 500 users from one tower is hard... And with a good system we need to serve a couple of thousands! How is that in respect to available spectrum????

I recently red some new wifi development that might help us; http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mit-scientists ... er-1577845
Seems not to be hard to implement and thus cheap and would push present wifi another couple of years into the future.... (But then again, it looks something like Mimoso is trying to do with their GPS sync mode...)

Talking with US-Wisps I see a lot of 450 and UBNT. A lot do LTE in 3,5 GHz and if available in 2,5GHz. With licensed spectrum it is not efficient to use gear without sync capabilities as it is a waste of spectrum. They dont use Mikrotik for outdoor wireless due to FCC rules.
We grandfather our Mikrotik installations as long as there are CPEs out. With new installations we dont install MT for wireless. We use MT for routing.