| Radio and harwdare wise UBNT is beating Mikrotik easy. I wish ubnt hardware had mikrotik software, cose i need it.
When i replace mikrotik link with UBNT i get alwas more stable link and more bandwidth in same conditions and frequency.
Even new hardware from MT like Groovy is getting replaced everyday in my infrastructure becouse of failure.
Most of nanobridge link that i set almost two years ago i forgot they exist, not the case with mikrotik. I have at least 5 failed groovy's in my desk.
I cant say the same thing for SXT cpes, cose i have only a few of them , they work solid.
Most of my pops now have only a wired MT router, every radio hardware is almost replaced to UBNT.
Too bad for MT they have such a powerful routing software but that's about it. They were not innovative with CPE and Bridges design, not to mention they were too late after UBNT got the market.
This was my survey after replacing the last MT link on my master distribution point with 8 links. |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | What kind of failures are you seeing with the Grooves? |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | What kinds of stability issues are you seeing with the Mikrotiks?
My own opinion of MT has been slipping a bit lately too. I absolutely HATE using UBNT on the AP side because MT is so much easier to work with using Winbox. For my 2.4ghz towers, I have mostly used MT AP's and UBNT CPE's. For the most part, they are pretty stable. I did just try upgrading someone from an old PS2 to a 24db grid dish with an MT Metal, and ended up having to use an Airgrid HP instead. The MT kept reassociating and the signals bounced wildly all over the place. The PS2 had a bit too low signal which caused some packet loss, but it at least stayed connected to the tower. The MT was worse. The AirGrid (despite a lower gain antenna) actually had better signal.
Also, all my 900mhz network are MT on both ends of the links, using XR9's. I've been seeing a lot of random "ressociating" issues lately, for no apparent reason. It's not like they are disconnecting because of data loss. Just reconnecting for no apparent reason, which obviously causes issues for the client.
As you said, it sucks because MT is so much more powerful from the software and hardware end of things, they just don't seem to be able to maintain solid links like they used to. |
|
| reply to ponline
The problem with a hybrid Mikrotik/UBNT network is you lose the Airmax or Nstream abilities.
That said, I prefer to use Ubiquiti for wireless and let Mikrotik do what it does best - route. |
|
|
|
| reply to John Galt
said by John Galt:What kind of failures are you seeing with the Grooves?
Mosty they loose rx sensivity or tx power except one recently was filled with water. |
|
 InssomniakThe GlitchPremium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:1 | reply to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:The problem with a hybrid Mikrotik/UBNT network is you lose the Airmax or Nstream abilities.
That said, I prefer to use Ubiquiti for wireless and let Mikrotik do what it does best - route.
+1
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca |
|
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | reply to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:The problem with a hybrid Mikrotik/UBNT network is you lose the Airmax or Nstream abilities. My testing is still limited, but I still have yet to see much of a performance increase by using any polling protocols. It seems to help a bit in some areas, and totally tanks in others. Granted none of my AP's are heavily loaded (15-20 CPE's max) but so far it hasn't made much of a difference for me.
said by wirelessdog:That said, I prefer to use Ubiquiti for wireless and let Mikrotik do what it does best - route. If UBNT could offer the same level of flexibility just for wireless that MT does with ROS and Winbox, I'd probably feel the same way. I just know that troubleshooting my MT AP's is a hundred times less work than trying to do the same thing on my few UBNT AP's. Part of it is just what I'm used to, but the other part of it is just plain obnoxious stuff that I can do with ROS but not AirOS. |
|
| reply to ponline
The simple lack of having real time data throughput for each associated station on one big list drives me crazy. That stat alone can save your butt. But UBNT refuses to implement it. They instead feel that it is adequate to have that statistic under individual clients where you can't see what everyone is doing at the same time.
That or your are supposed to rely on Aircontrol to do that job, which has it's own problems.
From a trouble shooting point of view, UBNT sucks. But we are supposed to apparently just trust them to have things work as advertised. Without any troubleshooting methods that actually can show you something. Pretty frustrating. Kind of like when they only had MAC addresses in the station list. So you couldn't even see what customer was what. I guess things like that work in a big flat network. But some of us actually use IP's to manage an IP network.. LOL
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net |
|
| reply to ponline
About 1000 MT devices deployed. MT+MiMo+NV2 for unlicenced LOS. Stable Ping with throughput to CPEs over 20Mbps on any AP.
Problems with the Ethernet interface on the RB411 but the same goes for the UB3.65 stuff I do have out there. Fixed easy enough with a Tycon Ethernet suppressor which fits nicely into an ARC enclosure... but kinda hard to squeeze into nano bridge  There are external suppressors but they look like you "had to" install a coupler.
At least 4 dozen Grove/B/G/N in the field without a failure. All MiMo clients are running R52Hn with 0 failures.
I've replaced some of my Rocket backhauls with MT MiMo; didn't touch the dish just took out the rocket and installed a MiMo MT radio one the same bandwidth and channel, and throughput went up ~25%.
I think it depends on your market and financial priorities: if you need to be cheap at the CPE then UB has it's place. If you need to be sustainable, modular, and want to have strong tools at the CPE then you can't Beat MT. |
|
1 edit | reply to ponline
Mikrotik clearly had a more efficient firmware than Ubiquiti. I haven't done any testing on 5.5.4 versus 5.5.2 but I just started deploying Titanium radios. Waiting to hear the results now.
As for polling protocols, I don't use them since my egress bandwidth is significantly less than the bandwidth of all my APs but I have heard good things on APs with a lot of users that are capped to very small bandwidths like 150 users with a 256Kbps limit. In that case, the Rockets, and probably more so, the Titaniums should work well with AirMax.
I understand the frustration with the management tools. AirControl needs to be retired but AirControl 2 is so far behind schedule without any update on when it might be finished, that I don't have a good defense for it. AC is limping along though and is basically usable for now. I feel for the guys running thousands of users though.
I'm not sure the stability and support statement is correct. My Ubiquiti equipment has been rock solid for a couple years. In addition, AirOS is so easy, I can teach it go guys in minutes and give enough information for troubleshooting for anyone. We also have hundreds of users and unless a device physically fails, rarely get calls on equipment problems. I just upgraded to 5.5.4 firmware across 400 devices a week ago and it seems to be rock solid with no issues so far. I don't know Mikrotik well enough for an honest comparison but I do know that the wide variety of product along with the cost/performance issue makes for a very good profit margin and ROI. |
|
 DaDawgsPremium
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA | reply to ponline
I found Mikrotik to be unsurpassed for backhauls running 802.11n. Stable, inexpensive, and capable of very high throughput. I had several PtP links which were between ten and fifteen miles. We installed them three years ago... and forgot them. They are still running just fine.
--
Once we IPv6 enable every device on the Internet we will have toasters, baby monitors, and security cameras joining the bot nets which today are populated only by idiots that can not refrain from clicking, "Yes I would like to see those titties..."
|
|
