Yeah, I realised this too. Thanks for noticing Casey 😁

If they are anything like the NanoStations I will never have to touch them again. They will just keep working 👌

An update for you John. It is still 100% uptime and working. I haven't touched it since the video 😊

Thanks Andrew. I've done a bunch of the older generation NanoStation too, and they are super realiable, but certainly not as fast as modern networks can be. I don't mind the fw updates as that usually means the product isn't dead 😁

@@LarsKlintTech true, think the older kit just works (and you know yourself the pro's and cons...) I'm happy to be honest when the network is online, you're lucky to have the chance to work and use your setup, really impressed with how you've got it working, thanks again!

@@andrewmccallum5699 It is definitely one of those things that "just needs to work" and I don't have to think about it. This latest upgrade really makes a difference to my workflow too. Thanks for watching Andrew.

I probably don't need the Plus model either, but MOAR GIGABITS!! And you're welcome. Thanks for your support at always my friend.

@@LarsKlintTech Well you know .. I mean you at least have a 'legit' usage of that ... I don't even have a NAS let alone need to transfer large files - so maybe I should actually just be happy with what I have and save the $$ :D

@@KeranMcKenzie Happiness is relative. More speed makes you more happy. Definitely.

Haha, yes that is one of the perks. We just have a bit further to the shops 😂

Oh, I am with you on that one Jean. However, albeit a short distance, it is quite complicated to actually dig the trench, go under two buildings, run the cable, and attach it all. The wireless link is magnitudes cheaper and more simple. If I do need more than 1.5Gbit, fiber might be the next step up. I am not disagreeing though 😁

Thanks mate. I saw the menu when I first started using NanoStations and it looked important so I figured I'd learn. And it was important!! 🤓

@@LarsKlintTech I have installed many links over the years, and it's amazing how much effect it can have.

@@Mitchvr32 I can believe that. And the longer the distance the greater the curve I'd imagine.

You are absolutely right. It's probably close enough between the devices that it won't make much of a difference, but I could attach a couple of wires to either side to make it more stable. Thanks mate 👌

Thanks Sam. That could totally work too, but I wanted to show something real and tangible that had time and size. Hence, the example I used.

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for watching :) There are two different product lines and systems at play here. The UDM SE is a Unifi device and runs the network controller. It can see all your access points, clients etc. The GigaBeam is a UISP device, and doesn't have anything to do with Unifi, other than being a client on it's network to get a connection. When you pair two GigaBeam devices you do that in the UISP system, and Unifi just sees two devices. Unifi can also suddenly "see" the devices on the network the GigaBeams connect, but it doesn't know why. It is like there is a network cable between the two networks. Think of Unifi as a network in a single location and UISP as connecting multiple locations. You can use UISP devices in the same location of course (as I am doing), but that is the idea. I hope that makes it a bit clearer.

@@LarsKlintTech awesome. Thank you, it definitely does. I guess the only thing I don’t understand is if the UISP system is hosted on the devices themselves, or if I need a cloud key, or similar console to be able to host and manage these devices?

@@Northflix_watch Yes, you need a UISP account, which both lets you use the mobile app, and gives you access to an online dashboard with a lot more stats. You don't need any additional hardware though.

@@Northflix_watch UISP is completely optional. You can self host for free, but are required to have 10 devices for the "free" cloud hosted option. The devices have a web interface and can be managed locally w/o UISP. UISP is only a management interface for groups of devices and is not needed to have it work.

Thanks Justin for the comment. I am aware of the bit to byte conversion too, and to top it off, it is often measured in Mebibits and Mebibytes now too 🤯

Oh, right. I wasn't aware of that, but that makes sense. Thanks for the added info ☺️

DON'T TEMPT ME KEVIN!!

Nice! That is good to hear. Also, I was not aware that there is a 5Ghz failover? How do you see that?

@@LarsKlintTech AFAIK the plus version has longer 60 ghz range but lacks the failover radio, the non-plus has both. There are additional signal bars for 5 ghz and a little indicator that says what frequency each side is using for data transfer. Switching from 60 to 5 ghz and viceversa is transparent to the user. Couldn’t be happier, only real downside imho is the passive 24v POE, I ended up buying Ubiquiti’s adapter to power the antenna from a standard POE switch

@@TheElleDj Ah yes, you are correct. Interesting. I am using the included PoE adaptor, which works well with the USW-24-POE. I wonder why they didn't put the 5Ghz failover in the Plus...

You are most welcome, thanks for watching :) The range is up to about 1km, so you can get a fair range on it. I'd love to hear how it works out for you too ☺

"Easy" is a very relative term. Easier to run than building a house: definitely. Easier than setting up a wireless link: definitely not. I am with you though, that I'd prefer a fiber connection too, but in my case it is just not feasible without major works and risks. We have to dig through established garden beds, up steep inclines, and through a part where there is both electricity and water pipes. Being an old farm, these aren't documented, so you can't just use a trenching machine. In addition there is no infrastructure to get the fiber inside the two established buildings on either end, and all the wiring is in the roof space, so you'd have to get the cabling up there too from the ground. Compared to installing two wireless devices to existing infrastructure, for the same internal speed, it is an easy choice in this case 😊

In regards to file transfer not using full speed, keep in mind these are half duplex devices. Since you are transferring in both direction the radio is splitting the load between both send and receive at the same time. Airtime usage vs total capacity tends to only be usable up to about 65(ish)% under optimal conditions if also downloading (even checksum/validation on TCP can cause this slowdown).

Very slight correction on the 60Ghz connection aiming - It is outside normal thought but the aiming is actually even more important at closer distances compared to further distances. Rain and weather will affect these devices quite strongly. As well as channel selection vs oxygen/humidity. Ideally at this sort of distance try to shoot for a -40 signal. Under a heavy rain, this connection could be impacted between by as much as -20dBm, or possibly knock out a -60 to -80 during such conditions (which tends to disconnect at -73dBm). And with regards tot the total capacity - the radio outperforms the port - so just treat it again as a half duplex radio. Ideally you can push 1GB in one direction yet still have enough speed to push 200-300 in the other direction. But since it has more airtime available to it for capacity these devices are great in contrast to AirMAX M or AC models with efficiency.

​@@SeijinSA That is super helpful! Thank you so much. I will try and adjust the channel width on the other NanoStation pairs I have and see the difference. The slow connection speed in the start was due to a faulty RJ45 plug. I redid it and it was back to Gb. Again, thanks for taking your time to share all this. Super super helpful.

@@LarsKlintTech While not helpful after the fact - the dashboard of the devices can also show a "cable quality" down at the very bottom. If this number is "red" or any value outside of 29-30db, there may be a fault between the radio and the switch. If you SSH into the device, or open Terminal View via UISP you can run the following command and determine which pairs the fault is on. "ethtool -S eth0" This shows what pairs are giving bad data and how long the cable detects as. Damage on pairs 0 and 1 affect data the most, with pairs 2 and 3 usually affecting voltage on 2 pair24v devices the most - same with some 48v devices. But it can also help determine if it is simple cable/connector corrosion and just put a new end on vs running a whole new cable.

@ Amazing. I have never really used the SSH functions of the devices. Definitely an area I need to learn. Thanks again.

Yes, you are totally right. The link speed is just below under "capacity". Thanks mate 😊

The fix was just to replace the RJ45 on one end. Easy. The firmware upgrade/management is done via the UISP app or dashboard (which I didn't show in the video). Unifi Network doesn't know about the UISP devices, so it can't access their management features.

I am not sure I understand. What does the electrical source have to do with it? Also, it isn't "just" to run an ethernet cable. It would take several days to do, cost about 10 times as much, and not have a ton of benefits for my current setup. If I need more than 1Gb connection internally, then I might consider it, but not in this case.

@@LarsKlintTech the distance doesn't seem like days to trench, was just thinking about all of the problems you were having (and ubiquiti has these annoying 100Mbps issues even with their toughcable brand ethernet) The electrical source is because of electrical faults, if there is GPR or something fails (like a neutral that feeds the property): then the Ethernet could become a source back which can fry your equipment. (Which is more reason to use either wireless or fiber). Lots of people blindly run Ethernet then something happens and they wonder why the equipment unexpectedly died. 🤣 (It has happened to me on commercial sites where this was a problem. Generators not properly bonded, lightning strikes, transformers catching fire). Solution was kevlar fiber between the buildings. If they have the same power transformer: then nothing from the provider will affect the buildings.

@@jamess1787 Ah, I see! I had no idea that would be a problem, but we are indeed on the same electrical network everywhere on the farm. Yeah, I figured out the issues, which were all my fault anyway. The trench is through established flower beds, up a steep incline, and under two old buildings. It would be days to both trench it and install everything. I'd love to do it, because I prefer cabled connections, but can't justify it in this case.

Yeah, that should work fine. It is just a data connection, and as far as the network is concerned, the GigaBeam just provides another connection. It doesn't matter whether it is wired or wireless.

If you don't have a switch with SFP ports you need 2 media converters for like $20/ea

@@mrmotofy While I prefer cabled connections where feasible, this isn't the case here. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. The cost of it all instead of the GigaBeams is then already a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally. In the future, if I need more than 1Gb, I might consider a trench solution, but it isn't as simple as you want it to be.

@@LarsKlintTech Yea I read some of your replies. It can be slightly more complicated with some of your complications. A lot could be solved rather easily. It can seem like a huge project for some who've probably never done it but it's really not. As you're learning more about RF, there's a lot of technical issues involved like interference. We have tons of wireless devices now and will continue to increase cuz it's easy to install. FYI a trencher might take 1 hr to do. After a couple days it would hardly be noticeable. Yes I know it would take a little more work and time...but future reliability is important to...it would also give you video content so it's all an investment that can pay back over time

@@mrmotofy Definitely more than an hour 😂 I totally get the radio interference, but currently being the middle of nowhere it is much less of a concern. And the GigaBeams are super reliable. I have used a trencher a number of times for various jobs that didn't go through a ton of stuff. Also, we aren't sure where power cables and water pipes run in that line we would have to dig, so that is another complication that can end in tears. As I said, definitely not off the table, but definitely not a "just an hour and a bit of inconvenience" either. I do appreciate your input, cause that is how I (and others) can form their own journey that is relevant to time and place 😊

While I prefer cabled connections where feasible, this isn't the case here. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. That is then already at least a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally. I haven't had any issues with connection stabilities at all, neither from the GigaBeams nor NanoStations. To utilise the faster speeds (> 1Gb) I would have to also upgrade significant portions of the switches and infrastructure. If that becomes relevant in the future I will definitely look into a cabled connection, but for now it isn't a good ROI in my scenario.

Oh, I absolutely could, but there is no "just" about it. It is an awful lot of digging, through established flower beds and up a steep incline as well. I would have to create infrastructure on both buildings to route the cable in as well. This solution is much much simpler and cheaper. Having said all that, I might still do it in the future if the infrastructure requires more than 1Gbit 🙂

I am not sure what you mean 🤔

@@LarsKlintTech typo, *for* I use them a bit in my system, always looking out for second hand airmax gear.

@@jack_out_the_back Ah right 😂 I have a plan for the two NanoStations I replaced. Hopefully that will be a future video 🤓

Thanks for watching 😊 Although it is a short distance, it is quite complicated to actually dig the trench, go under two buildings, run the cable, and attach it all. The wireless link is magnitudes cheaper and more simple. If I do need more than 1.5Gbit, fiber might be the next step up.

I agree, it is a bit strange that the ports are only 1Gb 🤔

I am obviously not Unifi, but it could have something to do with reliability. As passive PoE provides power at all times, whether the device requests it or not. This continuous power supply reduces the risk of damage due to unexpected power interruptions or power cycling, which could be a concern in certain scenarios. For example, the UISP devices are often deployed remotely and out of easy reach, so reliability is key. In my experience the NanoStations have never missed a beat and always just worked, which isn't the case with Unifi network equipment, as that is more feature rich and more things that can go wrong. I am just speculating, but that is my take on it.

More or less, I would have thought. There can't be a mountain in the way at least 😂

@@LarsKlintTech I tried the airmax Gigabeam non plus and it needed 100% direct sight or it wouldn’t work. Unlike nanostation they can work inside a building

Compared to what I had, absolutely!!!

While I prefer cabled connections where feasible, this isn't the case here. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, through water pipes and existing electricity cabling, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. The cost of it all instead of the GigaBeams is then already a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally. In the future, if I need more than 1Gb, I might consider a trench solution, but it isn't as simple as you want it to be.

The port on the device is Gigabit. Which makes you wonder why it transmits at 1.5Gb 🤔

Thanks? 🤔

Thanks Mark. Appreciate the feedback. While it does need to be upgraded, or at least secured better, it is a "hockey stick" which is meant for mounting antennas on. The anemometer is so low friction, that I doubt it, on its own, make any difference. The day I put all this up it was very windy, yet I had full Gigabit signal. So, yes, I need to secure it better, but it isn't as bad as you think 😊 Also, the station is the secondary device according to UBNT docs.

Alex, it's really not that simple. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, through an area with electricity and water pipes that aren't known where are, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. The cost of it all instead of the GigaBeams is then already a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally. In the future, if I need more than 1Gb, I might consider a trench solution, but it isn't as simple as you want it to be.

@@LarsKlintTech come on, hire a Coates Excavator (1.4t - $406 per 24 hr) and make the video :-)

@@a9503128 Hehe, I am not _opposed_ to that idea 😏

Thanks for the tip 😀. I've been through it before and have fixed a few cables. In this case it was the cable that limited the NanoStation speed to 100M/bit but it would never have got 1.5Gbit anyway (max about 250M/bit), so the upgrade is still 100% valid. And now I have the start for +1Gbit too 😁

Although it is a short distance, it is quite complicated to actually dig the trench through established flower beds up a steep incline, through an area of electricity and water pipes, go under two buildings that don't have any infrastructure for cabling underneath, run the cable, and attach it all for the same speed internally as the GigaBeams. The wireless link is magnitudes cheaper, performs about on par with the current setup and more simple. If I do need more than 1.5Gbit in the future, fiber might be the next step up. But it isn't that simple at all, unless you are offering to come and do it for me? Besides, the point of the video is to show the wireless link 🤷‍♂

While I prefer cabled connections where feasible, this isn't the case here. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. Buying another two switches instead of the GigaBeams is then already almost a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally.

While I prefer cabled connections where feasible, this isn't the case here. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. The cost of it all instead of the GigaBeams is then already a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally. In the future, if I need more than 1Gb, I might consider a trench solution, but it isn't as simple as you want it to be. The initial limit of 100Mbit was caused by a faulty RJ45 connector, which I fixed and now it's back to Gigabit 😊 All my cabling is CAT6 as well.

What do you mean by "home audio"? Can you elaborate?

@@LarsKlintTech Sure, like a PA system I mean you live on a farm after all! Would be cool to see esp32 intercom hacked together. also do you use any smart speakers like sonos?

@@dandraeg3679 Alright. I don't really need a PA system. I enjoy the peace and quiet 😁 I did do a video on text-to-speech using Google Hubs and Home Assistant, so that is audio- related at least: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j516gZmKvdq3YoE.html I am planning on doing a voice recognition video as well using Azure or Google too.

I still don't quite understand how that measurement works, other than it indicates signal quality/strength. I am in Australia.

@LarsKlintTech It is a log. 20 log 63 x 1 mW. I think it is log 63/20 x .001 W.

You are mistaken. They run on 24V.

Yeah, I did realise this after I fixed the Gigabit connection too. So I would have got maybe 20-ish MB/s on the NanoStation, so still a big improvement. You are absolutely right though Rob. Thanks for the observation 😊

Also frequency management changes a heap. 😊

@@daniel.s8126 Yeah, totally. I didn't pick up on it in time for the filming 😂

I see that number frequently because my M2 loco only has a 100mbit interface 🤓

? "Yeah, I didn't get it 100% dialled in in the video. What would be a good signal though? I have no outages, and I get full speed still.

While I prefer cabled connections where feasible, this isn't the case here. The trenching alone is complicated through established flower beds, up very steep inclines, and into two separate old established buildings on stumps. There is currently no access in either from underneath, so you would have to install a path through the floor and up into the ceiling where the cabling is. The cost of it all instead of the GigaBeams is then already almost a cost equalizer. You then add the hours to dig the trench, the cable, the conduit, and the mess. I prefer my solution in this case, which achieves the same speed I can support internally.

The GigaBeam plus is USD179, and that is a LOT cheaper than having to dig down a cable across that distance, not to mention much faster and simpler. Not sure where you are getting your facts from.

You do you for sure. In my case, the wireless link is about a tenth of the price of the wired install, takes a fraction of the time, and is a lot less messy. And, for my purposes, works just as well considering my current infrastructure. What makes the hardware crap? I have never had any outages of degradations with any of the wireless links I have used over the past three years.

Thanks Benny for your input. The pole really is flimsy, and I am going to stabilise it in the near future to get it not wobbly. With your extensive expertise in the field of RF, is it still a problem when one device is 2.4Ghz, second is 5.2Ghz and a third is 62Ghz? They are very different bandwidths. I never claimed to be an expert in this field, but everyone has to start somewhere, right? With that, could you clarify what you mean by "spewing RF all over the joint"? And what level of training do you recommend people should have before they are allowed to buy network equipment? Thanks again for watching. Cheers, Lars.

@@LarsKlintTech The simplest way is to watch others and listen to what they say and pick the good bits from the junk. I would suggest paying attention to the older, more mature installers who have radio backgrounds as many of the young pups filling YT simply don't have the decades of expirience, crikey, I only been doing radio for over 35 years.. The weather station talks to the controller on eith 433 or 900MHz and the controller has only got a cheap 1x1 SISO 2.4GHz WiFi chipset which are crap at best, I know because I had one. The Outdoor AC-M is only 23dBm of grunt (they suck at times) and the antennas are ordinary at best. A good pair of dual-band Omini's will see it run better but if you just need range, then disable the 5GHz and run 2.4GHz only with a UBNT 10dBi MIMOP antenna, the 13 is big-boy country. I use them a lot in rural or large area sites and can provide 200-400M radius of coverage with ease. The 5GHz radio you did have was being swamped by the AC-M as your noise floor was ordinary. Simple band-planning and locking frequencies along with stable, vertical mount would have seen those radios lock and high modulation without an issue. 60GHz is a strickly short-range only solution. Don't believe the sales BS UBNT use as well have very different RF power limits here in AUS to the yanks. Move to a 40-50mm pipe with decent guy legs, put weather station on top and spread other radios apart as best you can. Cabling, outdoor grade only. Gen-1 UniFi switches (square blue halo on front) can do both AF PoE as well as 24V passive. Keep in mind, 24V passive is reversed polarity.

@@bentheguru4986 That is a ton of awesome information. Thanks Benny :) That is exactly the kind of feedback I look for to learn from. 👌

@@LarsKlintTech If you study up on radio a bit and understand the terms "Front-End" and "Desense", you will start to see why despite radios being on different channels or even different bands, seperation by physical distance or be mechanical means is a must. Cheers.

@@bentheguru4986 Excellent. Will start there. Thanks Benny, and keep the knowledge coming please 😊

Thanks for the feedback and your confidence in my presentation skills 🙂 I do like the background music in some videos and places, but not everywhere. I use it when I think it adds some creative depth to the video. I hope to see you back in the future.

@@LarsKlintTech no worries, thanks for letting me know. The content was good...i did end up watching it in the end ;)

@@schmutly Awesome, glad you got some value out of it 😊

I am indeed an amateur. I've never professed to be anything but. Although, I'll take "super" amateur, thank you. I don't leave out faults, errors and things I don't understand because it helps an enormous amount of people to approach tech they otherwise would hesitate to, because they think they need to be a super tech expert like yourself. We can't all have the vast superior skills you possess, so it's far better to be honest and raw about your approach. Btw could you share a link to your content so we can all learn from it. I always look to improve so that would be super helpful. Thanks for watching 😊

Misspelling amateur twice doesn't really make you sound like an expert either 🙄

Edit* 2 or more points. The server can handle multiple connections coming into it from clients. Able to test saturation thruput on servers to prove they are able to handle X rated Gig. 10:1 the prior connection was hamstrung by a bad connection also. Limited to 100mpb but had 300 in the air available. You upgraded but your prior setup was only using about a 3rd of what you should of had.

All really good points Christopher. I did realise the faulty connection too, so you are right, the NanoStations should have been running 250-300 as well. Wifiman from Unifi can do a lot of what you mention as well, if you have two device with it installed on the same Unifi network. I'll check out btest though. Thanks again.

Can you elaborate? What values would you expect for that distance? Also, why CAT8?