Hello guys,

After nv2 intoduced i get better throughput with moving my links to tdma but, i get more stable latency and throughput on nstreme links.
We know tdma superb on ptmp links, what do you recomend on ptp links nv2 or nstreme ? Is nstreme obsolete?

After nv2 intoduced i get better throughput with moving my links to tdma but, i get more stable latency and throughput on nstreme links.
We know tdma superb on ptmp links, what do you recomend on ptp links nv2 or nstreme ? Is nstreme obsolete?

wich one is it?
all my links ptp and ptmp are nv2, it seems that N cards don't work very good with nstreme.

NV2 is very bad for ptp, causing high latency....mainly in noisy enviroment...there is nothing better for latency than dual-nestreme, or nstreme...

Yes also throughput is spikey on nv2.
Nstreme is more stable but some reason it did not work well with dual chains.
Why did mikrotik not solve this issue ? Did they abandon nstreme ?
If this is the case why do not they improve nv2 for ptp links?

If someone can explain this
Why do I need nv2 for p2p - TDMA protocol is making time slots for every client but on p2p in general u have only one client

It is making timeslots for each down/up channel one client may use all of them or several clients may share.. I just wanted to learn Is mikrotik spending time over nstreme? Are they still improve/developing it? Will they fix pool timeout issue on nstreme?

It is making timeslots for each down/up channel one client may use all of them or several clients may share.. I just wanted to learn Is mikrotik spending time over nstreme? Are they still improve/developing it? Will they fix pool timeout issue on nstreme?

This is big mystery....and mikrotik dont communicate with needs of clients...

It is making timeslots for each down/up channel one client may use all of them or several clients may share.. I just wanted to learn Is mikrotik spending time over nstreme? Are they still improve/developing it? Will they fix pool timeout issue on nstreme?

Yes it sound better but
most of my p2p links I m sure and yours are running nstreme because for me its better
about pool timeout issue and random disconnects I was writing and writing and writing until one day I was tired :):) u can find million posts about that
hope they come out with something soon
Happy new year and best wishes...

Nv2 should give you better speed. Nstreme in some cases could have better latency.

Nv2 should give you better speed. Nstreme in some cases could have better latency.

Why nstreme is not working on N cards? Why dont you work on solving problems on N cards...this could bring you a lot of customers from ubnt....

If someone can explain this
Why do I need nv2 for p2p - TDMA protocol is making time slots for every client but on p2p in general u have only one client

Nv2 has better throughput and it is more stable, but major problem is that nv2 doesn't work in sequence: single connection drops drastically when traffic over links increases. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66380

Nv2 should give you better speed. Nstreme in some cases could have better latency.

Why nstreme is not working on N cards? Why dont you work on solving problems on N cards...this could bring you a lot of customers from ubnt....

Actually nstreme is working good on N
but is much more sensitive on Noise only problem is disconnect issue - just my thought
just to add
On A cards dont have such problem

I have 4 ptp links and one ptmp with mikrotik. None works with nstreme. In fact they work but not as good as nv2. 2 links are with groove, one with RB711G and one with SXT.

My experience is the following:

NV2 - Works well with N (MIMO and SISO) links. Higher trhoughput, and link stability is better. Although you get latency's that are not preferred. 2ms-20ms. Jumps all over the place,while sending data. I use NV2 on all my newer PTP links to get the throughput I want. All these links has a CCQ of 95% and up.

Nstreme - Works well with 802.11a, and 802.11g, turbo mode(40Mhz). If link works, you have awesome latency while sending data, <1ms. Throughput is high as well. We can only dream about using Nstreme on N links.. It just doesn't work..

I wish Mikrotik would work on a PTP protocol, because it seems they have dropped all support for the nstreme protocol..

My experience is the following:

NV2 - Works well with N (MIMO and SISO) links. Higher trhoughput, and link stability is better. Although you get latency's that are not preferred. 2ms-20ms. Jumps all over the place,while sending data. I use NV2 on all my newer PTP links to get the throughput I want. All these links has a CCQ of 95% and up.

Nstreme - Works well with 802.11a, and 802.11g, turbo mode(40Mhz). If link works, you have awesome latency while sending data, <1ms. Throughput is high as well. We can only dream about using Nstreme on N links.. It just doesn't work..

I wish Mikrotik would work on a PTP protocol, because it seems they have dropped all support for the nstreme protocol..

really true, this couldnt accept some mikrotik fanatics...
Hope if anybody has working dualnstreme on N cards(mimo) and if it is working in real.

NSTREME on N-links works perfectly, x86 hardware, SR71 od SparkLan198N mici-pci cards, MIMO, dual polarization. I don't see any problems with NSTREME on N-links, it works stable with excellent throughput in my commercial environment almost 2 years on more than 10 links.

NSTREME on N-links works perfectly, x86 hardware, SR71 od SparkLan198N mici-pci cards, MIMO, dual polarization. I don't see any problems with NSTREME on N-links, it works stable with excellent throughput in my commercial environment almost 2 years on more than 10 links.

Yes I agree nstreme works perfectly in stand point of speed and latency except disconnect problem witch I m bateling with this problem since 5.x OS
we are talking hire for p2p N dual links

What ver. of MT OS are u using 4.17 earlier 5.x? have u tried > 5.18,5.19... ver of MT OS?

yes, which version of rOS do you use?
I tryed yesterday: one site: rb433ah +r52nM, other site: rb711-5hn-mmcx
one polarized antennas on both site, nv2 gives 40mbit/s, after changing to nstreme 2-10mbit/s.
ros 6rc6 and client v5.22.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1z20l83.jpg

pleasu could you specify more nstreme setting: hw-retries, frame policy..?

Nv2 should give you better speed. Nstreme in some cases could have better latency.

nv2 does not give better speed in my case and nstreme is disconnecting because of pool timeout.

Nstreme had the lowest latency, 0-1ms. However seems ever since v6+ it crippled the performance of it...

Agree, nstreme is total crap on v6. Do you guys know last stable ROS version that nstreme runs stable and with good bandwidth? I need to run this wireless link for a month before I can change it to UBNT gear...

Is anyone tested nstreme from v6.7, when they updated it? I got some good results lately.

Agree, nstreme is total crap on v6. Do you guys know last stable ROS version that nstreme runs stable and with good bandwidth? I need to run this wireless link for a month before I can change it to UBNT gear...

It depends. With low interference nstreme gives better results than nv2. NV2 works reliable but reduces tcp speed.

I noticed that both works bad with chain 1 and 2 enabled. CCQ bad, rates 216-180mb/s... When enabled only chain 1, everything is ok, rates 150/150 CCQ 99-100. Maybe something is wrong with the link, I dont know, 700m CLOS, enough fresnel, interference low...