The RB SXTsq 2nD (or 2HPnD if one exists) is a device not yet seen. If anyone has one of these devices, I can make an image to test. The assumption is it uses the LHG mother board same as the 5GHz SXTsq devices.
Joe and Orv,
I've got a SXTsq Lite2 (RBSXTsq2nD) coming from Lithuania as we speak. I'll let you know when it gets here.
I've been showing off my 5GHz versions and they are pretty impressive, mostly because they're so tiny.
I have flashed and been using AE6XE-develop-ad0caaf firmware release on my 2 units which are working just fine. Will the firmware changes be reflected in any of the new nightly builds? I hate to try another flash without some confirmation that the SXTsq line has been configured for both low and high power units but only listed on the firmware page for the higher output device.
Hey Joe,
I have a SXT 2nD r2 device in hand. Looks like it has ATHEROS AR9300 chip set.
Is this something worthy of AREDN testing? I may have access to a large inventory of retired units.
Unfortantely, this device doesn't have an image in Openwrt. It's not similar to other models, so not a slam dunk. The SXTsq models are internally the same motherboard as the LHGs, so was straight forward.
The SXTsq-Lite2 is now AREDN-ized and I love it!!!
Thanks to Joe and the other developers. Once again, you are amazing!!!
The SXTsq Lite2 (RBSXTsq2nD) is now up and running. This is the 2.4GHz version of the tiny square panel series from MikroTik. Even though it is called SXTsq Lite2 (RBSXTsq2nD), this thing is NOT 'Lite' in RF power. It has 30dBm of power and 2x2MIMO 10dBi panel antenna.
I've been testing it for a few days now and I'm impressed with its 'capability to size ratio'. I'd like to compare it with the NanoStation M2 for a second because it's a small 2.4GHz node with similar power and built-in directional antenna - although I almost shudder to compare the venerable NanoStation that I love so much:
Size:
MikroTik SXTsq-Lite2: 5x5x1"
Ubiquiti NanoStation M2: 12x3x1.5"
*The clear winner here is the Lite2 as it fits in my back pocket.
Ethernet:
SXTsq-Lite2: 1 LAN port
NanoStation M2: 2 LAN ports
*The clear winner here is the NanoStation as its 2 LAN ports is the reason I love it so.
Antenna dBi (this is more important than RF power as RX is usually the decider in SNR):
SXTsq-Lite2: 10.2dBi
NanoStation M2: 10.8dBi
*About the same - but more important than RF power (dBm)
RF Power:
SXTsq-Lite2: 30dBm
NanoStation M2: 28dBm
*The winner is the Lite2, which might help it punch through rain or a few errant leaves.
Ease of Mounting:
SXTsq-Lite2: mounts on any damn thing you can fit a zip-tie around
NanoStation M2: small-mast mounted
*They're both super easy, but the winner is the Lite2
Memory:
SXTsq-Lite2: 64MB
NanoStation M2: 32MB (I think even the XW version has 32MB - Am I wrong?)
*The winner is the Lite2 and allows hosting iperfSpeed and Meshchat with ease.
The real discussion point with the Lite2 is that these boards, which includes the LDF-2 and LHG-2 series, have proven to have slightly lower noise levels in the -2 Channel (not so much in the normal 1-11 channels). So they have roughly -90dBm instead of -95dBm like the Ubiquiti 2.4GHz devices. This issue is only for the 2.4GHz LDF-2/LHG-2/SXTsq-2 board and not the 5GHz series, and neither for any other MikroTik 2.4GHz device. Now, this hasn't really made much of a difference in its throughput within the network, but it should be considered. I think we need to study it more and I certainly think it's not true for all of these devices, maybe 1 out of 5 has noticeable issues. We certainly are using them out of band, but perhaps we can tweak them a bit to correct this - it would be worth it.
Joe AE6XE
I've got a SXTsq Lite2 (RBSXTsq2nD) coming from Lithuania as we speak. I'll let you know when it gets here.
I've been showing off my 5GHz versions and they are pretty impressive, mostly because they're so tiny.
-Damon K9CQB
I have a SXT 2nD r2 device in hand. Looks like it has ATHEROS AR9300 chip set.
Is this something worthy of AREDN testing? I may have access to a large inventory of retired units.
SN:486702CA4FE/338
Joe AE6XE
The SXTsq Lite2 (RBSXTsq2nD) is now up and running. This is the 2.4GHz version of the tiny square panel series from MikroTik. Even though it is called SXTsq Lite2 (RBSXTsq2nD), this thing is NOT 'Lite' in RF power. It has 30dBm of power and 2x2MIMO 10dBi panel antenna.
I've been testing it for a few days now and I'm impressed with its 'capability to size ratio'. I'd like to compare it with the NanoStation M2 for a second because it's a small 2.4GHz node with similar power and built-in directional antenna - although I almost shudder to compare the venerable NanoStation that I love so much:
Size:
MikroTik SXTsq-Lite2: 5x5x1"
Ubiquiti NanoStation M2: 12x3x1.5"
*The clear winner here is the Lite2 as it fits in my back pocket.
Ethernet:
SXTsq-Lite2: 1 LAN port
NanoStation M2: 2 LAN ports
*The clear winner here is the NanoStation as its 2 LAN ports is the reason I love it so.
Antenna dBi (this is more important than RF power as RX is usually the decider in SNR):
SXTsq-Lite2: 10.2dBi
NanoStation M2: 10.8dBi
*About the same - but more important than RF power (dBm)
RF Power:
SXTsq-Lite2: 30dBm
NanoStation M2: 28dBm
*The winner is the Lite2, which might help it punch through rain or a few errant leaves.
Ease of Mounting:
SXTsq-Lite2: mounts on any damn thing you can fit a zip-tie around
NanoStation M2: small-mast mounted
*They're both super easy, but the winner is the Lite2
Memory:
SXTsq-Lite2: 64MB
NanoStation M2: 32MB (I think even the XW version has 32MB - Am I wrong?)
*The winner is the Lite2 and allows hosting iperfSpeed and Meshchat with ease.
The real discussion point with the Lite2 is that these boards, which includes the LDF-2 and LHG-2 series, have proven to have slightly lower noise levels in the -2 Channel (not so much in the normal 1-11 channels). So they have roughly -90dBm instead of -95dBm like the Ubiquiti 2.4GHz devices. This issue is only for the 2.4GHz LDF-2/LHG-2/SXTsq-2 board and not the 5GHz series, and neither for any other MikroTik 2.4GHz device. Now, this hasn't really made much of a difference in its throughput within the network, but it should be considered. I think we need to study it more and I certainly think it's not true for all of these devices, maybe 1 out of 5 has noticeable issues. We certainly are using them out of band, but perhaps we can tweak them a bit to correct this - it would be worth it.
-Damon K9CQB