Hi jakkwb,
No, 30 and 50 MHz channels aren’t planned for the immediate future.
Sriram
Hello everibody.
Is disponible the firmware of F300 for not-contiguous chanel bonding?
Thanks
stefano, I thinks this feature won't reach F300.
Someone from Cambium can comment about TCP traffic differencies on UDP in the previous pages?
Hello i can connect force 300 to epmp 2000?
I cant connect and use PPoE.
Thanks!
Current firmware has F300 locked to TDD PTP mode, so at the moment it does not support SM mode
FIRMWARE 4.1.3-RC10
AGGREGATE THROUGHPUT RESULTS
20 Mhz = 153 Mbit Throughput!
40 Mhz = 312 Mbit Throughput!!
80 Mhz = 680 Mbit Throughput!!!
The Force300 and AC wave2 technology are still a work in progress, but the latest beta firmware is quite impressive for thoughput. I still have a hate for #SuperDimLEDs - but we'll put that asside for now.
Here are the latest test results in 20 Mhz, 40 Mhz, and in 80 Mhz widths. We are currently using them in 40 Mhz for our production needs, because that's all the speed we need. This is outdoors, in the City - at 1.25 KM
20 Mhz Wireless Test = 153 Mbit Aggregate Throughput!
40 Mhz Wireless Test = 312 Mbit Aggregate Throughput!
80 Mhz Wireless Test = 680 Mbit Aggregate Throughput!!! <-- WOW!
So far, we're pretty impressed by the throughput from these Force300 units, and we look foward to the ePMP3000 AP's! :)
I can confirm throughput is far better starting from 4.1.3-RC8, they're working hard to give the best performance with this Force 300!
This isn't true only for UDP traffic, but also with TCP, and also jitter is better.
Great work Cambium developers!
Any info about TCP vs UDP problem ?
We found same problem on Force300 and PTP550, and Mikrotik are not problem !
1. Info for Mikrotik, from 6.44 btest are changed and finaly:
*) btest - added multithreading support for both UDP and TCP tests;
*) btest - added warning message when CPU load exceeds 90% (CLI only);
!) speedtest - added "/tool speed-test" for ping latency, jitter, loss and TCP and UDP download, upload speed measurements (CLI only)
2. Here are results from our Force300 below:
Mikrotik UDP say same:
Mikrotik TCP half speed:
For comparation we did test from same routerboard TCP speed over our PTP670 link, which are reporting 300 Mbps, and really have TCP and UDP 300+ Mbps, so..Mikrotik are not problem...especially after upgrading on version 6.44 that solves one core usage problem !
- force300_test.png (39.3 KB)
Too sad to hear that. I bought two brand new F300-25 yesterday, my colleagues and I tried today all day long with 4.1.4 FW, 1.56km PTP link over town, very bad performance on every channel from 4935 to 5945MHz, eather 20MHz, 40MHz or 80MHz. Clear LOS, signal between -45 and -52. Tried everything, change AP to SM and SM to AP mode on both sides, tried to decrease rf power, to increase rf power, nothing. Link performace show 97% quality and capacity 92%. The best result we got is 142/64Mbps TCP traffic.CCR1009 on both sides.UDP doesn't show anything relevant for serious PTP link in WISP industry. Those devices are not designated to work in highly noisy environment, it is simple as that. We had to get back od PBE 5AC 500-ISO with 60MHz channel width, 463/398Mbps real TCP traffic. Just to say that UBNT also doesn't work great at 20/40 or 80MHz, very bad traffic throughput. But, at 50 or 60MHz channel width, works great. So we need to wait for something to happen with those devices's FW or something else for much better noise improvements.
@mjoksimovic wrote:Too sad to hear that. I bought two brand new F300-25 yesterday, my colleagues and I tried today all day long with 4.1.4 FW
Why are you using such old firmware? Current is 4.3.1, and beta is 4.3.2-RC15.
How many TCP connections were you using in your testing? We've found we need to use 5+ to get proper measurements. Make sure your Mikrotik ROS is up to date with 6.44 or greater.
I'm extremely surprised you're seeing better results with the PBE and 60MHz channel width in a high noise environment. Something isn't right here.
1 Like
@mjoksimovic wrote: I bought two brand new F300-25... ...with 4.1.4 FW, 1.56km PTP link over town, very bad performance on every channel... ...Tried everything.
Yikes, amongst the 'everything' to try, the newest firmware would have been good to also try. I mean, I don't know for sure how that would fare in your environment - but certainly 4.1.x was pretty early 'right out of the gate' software, and there has been LOTS of performance increases since then. :)
@mjoksimovic wrote: ...1.56km PTP link over town, very bad performance... . ..Link performace show 97% quality and capacity 92%. The best result we got is 142/64Mbps
We do a similar link - Force300's PTP, right over the center of town, with lots of noise, about 1.3km, so pretty similar to your situation. In 40 Mhz channel, we get about 310Mbit aggregate most of the time. Right now, at 7:48 PM (so, about the noisiest, busiest time of the day) we are getting 243 download, and 68 Mbit upload = so 311 Mbit aggregate in a 40 Mhz channel.
I should point out, my results are also with fixed frame 75%/25% - so in the future, if there is a flexible frame mode in any future firmwares, the equivalent numbers would be something more like 300/300 in a flexible frame type of test of course. ALSO, hopefully there will be an ePTP mode (specific Point-to-Point mode for ePMP radios) and at least in the ePMP1000 and 2000 series, that made quite a big improvement for PTP situations as well. Hopefully that sees it's way to the e3000 series.
@mjoksimovic wrote: Just to say that UBNT also doesn't work great at 20/40 or 80MHz, very bad traffic throughput. But, at 50 or 60MHz channel width, works great.
Agreed. We are also eager to see additional channel widths in the future - I hope so. It would be good to see 5 and 10 Mhz channels (for compatibility with the ePMP1000/2000 APs) and it would be great to see 30, 50 and 60 Mhz channel widths as well. Currently we are seeing over 300 Mbit in 40Mhz channels and about 600 Mbit in 80Mhz channels, so it'd be great to have 30 and 50 and 60 as available options too.
@mjoksimovic wrote: So we need to wait for something to happen with those devices's FW or something else for much better noise improvements.
The firmware you should be using is 4.3.1 version. If it was me, I'd try them in the shop before I go hang them outside again, and get an idea of the expected performance there. Then take them to the wild after that. There is also 4.3.2-RC15 BETA, but that's mainly for compatibility between epmp1000 series, 2000 series, and 3000 series... so I wouldn't use a BETA version in this PTP link.
Thank you for replying. Tried everything you wrote but nothing better. FW upgrade doesn't help so much. Agregate throughput is about 210Mbps but UDP. TCP sucks again. We changed channels several times, nothing. I'll put them in storage room for collection. They aren't for serious use for now. I need extremely stable and reliable link with at least 500Mbps real TCP throughput without these random oscilations and drops so these devices are not capable to serve this role. I will migrate to B24 or AF24. Thank you anyway.
Regards,
You can try to lock down modulation to the value that has more percentage in Performances section of your F300, and choose a value you think can make your radio reach 99-100% on that modulation.
For example, if you can see 10% DS MCS9, and 30% DS MCS8, and 70% MCS7, for sure you’ll get about 100% on MCS7 locking it on MCS7.
I had similar issues and locking modulation down on both master and slave side helped me to reach exactly the same values as UDP on TCP traffic.
Give it a try
About your message about AF24 and B24, they are completely different devices at a completely different price target, so you can’t really compare.
Force 300-25 target price and technology should compare with similar devices, and for sure you can’t have the stability you dream on any 5GHz device in interfered spectrum. Even the best radio can be stable for months and then you’ll have interferences and you’ll have to change channel/bandwidth.
If you need a secure and super stable link you can choose microwaves on different frequencies, but your range will vary and you’ll need to consider rain and distance.
Every situation has the right radio, you can’t think to put 500Mbps customer traffic on an under 200$ device with the stability and reliability of a microwave solution 
Understood but here we have several problems. First of all, with PBE 5AC 400, we had around 400Mbps agregate throughput on 60MHz channel width. When we took almost all the time more than 300Mbps occupied traffic on this link, pings have been increased. This is the main reason for our migration to F300s but disappointment is big. We hoped we can get this fraffic with these devices and to get better pings but nothing. Traffic just can't be even near this 300Mbps and not to mention something else.
When I mentioned B24 or AF24, I didn't compared this segment of eqipment with F300s. I would say this was some kind of disappear more than comparasion. ;-)
I believe F300s will work rock solid and much more stable if programmers implement some other channel sizes like 10, 30, 50 and 60MHz. Until then, we have to be "merged" to UBNT. :-(
If not, Cambium in unlicensed spectrum for PTP links is not the option.
We bought a dozen F300's about a year ago for P2P knowing we would have to wait for DFS channels... didn't realize we would be waiting this long. We did have an opportunity to deploy a set a while back on a short link where we had about 20Mhz of non-DFS frequency available. The performance of the link has been stable since the last firmware update but the capacity of the link is pretty underwhelming. This likely due to crowding the edges of the freq we are using.
What a step backwards from the Force200... Other than being AC they are inferior to the F200 in every possible way. They actually managed to make the LEDs dimmer (You can't even tell if they are on INDOORS!), the offset dish can't be reversed (really ? really Cambium ? ) , the U-bolt is superior to the carriage bolts of the first ePMP dish but far inferior to the F200's mount and you can't easily replace the horn like you can on the F200 (again... really Cambium ? ). Absolute garbage compared to the F200.
1 Like
Was wondering are these results provided in this post from LOS, nLOS and/or NLOS?
@LostInTheTrees wrote:
Was wondering are these results provided in this post from LOS, nLOS and/or NLOS?
Hi. If you're refering to the test results from 2018 that I posted initially - those are from a point-to-point link across town, 1.25 KM link, and it's mostly clear with just a few scattered branches in the way right at one end of the link.... but mostly clear.
Of course, this testing last year was with early Beta software too - much, much better results now as the firmware has matured.