I feel OFDMA wasn’t specifically created with reducing latency as a primary goal.
James, could you share some details about your intended link such as distance, required throughput, latencies (what exactly are you dealing with ?), what kind of sensitive applications will be running over that link (voice ? technology real-time control and monitoring ?). Maybe you could look at other products - for example Force400 or Force4600.
Force400 is capable of 5ms avg pings at full load : Cambium Force 400 на платформе 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) для каналов точка-точка - Cambium Networks - Форумы NAG.RU
it’s in russian but graphs, units and numbers don’t need translation (and google translates the whole page beautifully). For those afraid to open russian pages : 40MHz channel = 450Mbps real throughput upload or download (Force400 is not TDD so there is no mandatory download / upload channel ratio), at 9km distance.
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=4.27 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=2.69 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=8.55 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=3.50 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=3.73 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=4.82 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=6.54 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=2.44 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=2.65 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=7.32 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=11 ttl=64 time=2.48 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=12 ttl=64 time=8.79 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=13 ttl=64 time=8.94 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=14 ttl=64 time=7.61 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=15 ttl=64 time=8.19 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=16 ttl=64 time=3.52 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=17 ttl=64 time=8.59 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=18 ttl=64 time=2.77 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=19 ttl=64 time=3.62 ms
40 bytes from 10.202.18.99: icmp_req=20 ttl=64 time=3.18 ms
— 10.202.18.99 ping statistics —
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19032ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.443/5.214/8.949/2.449 ms
sure that’s just 20 responses but there’s a huuuuuuge text file attached to the topic with 20MHz channel latencies under full load. And they are as brilliant as you can see above.
This is how it looks like if you don’t have full radio (“only 380Mbps” instead of 450Mbps above), 1470 byte pings :
PING 10.202.18.104 (10.202.18.104) 1470(1498) bytes of data.
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=2.79 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=2.85 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=2.36 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=2.94 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=2.11 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=2.30 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=2.28 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=1.93 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=2.67 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=2.69 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=11 ttl=64 time=2.46 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=12 ttl=64 time=2.49 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=13 ttl=64 time=2.45 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=14 ttl=64 time=2.42 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=15 ttl=64 time=2.73 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=16 ttl=64 time=2.83 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=17 ttl=64 time=2.91 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=18 ttl=64 time=2.61 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=19 ttl=64 time=2.91 ms
1478 bytes from 10.202.18.104: icmp_req=20 ttl=64 time=4.12 ms
— 10.202.18.104 ping statistics —
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19028ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.935/2.646/4.125/0.439 ms
I don’t think we can ask for more from this technology.
That was not 6GHz, not 802.11ax, not Force4600c. Mining company most likely will be placed outside of interference in remote area, which will make the link even better.
Vendor specifications for low-latency/low-jitter appz quite often hugely overstate the true real requirements. Because they simply want to be covered at maximum possible level.
Sure you can’t build your business case on expectation / hope, just saying : I’ve created several emergency radio links for datacenter technology and software which were abused heavily - you know how it goes with non-tech customers - and because of that, failed miserably to fulfill those original requirements.
edit : you can transfer almost 900Mbit/s of real data over 80MHz channel, 12km distance on Force400. No artificial tests, just real traffic. If your customer requires couple of megabits, not hundreds of Mbits, I would seriously consider Force400, Force4600.