Zap In 5 GHz, Average
Switching to the 5 GHz band, we notice two things immediately. First, Aruba has a pulse! The AP125 handily blows past Cisco at close quarters. More importantly, though, both Ruckus and Aruba show 5 GHz numbers that are double the throughput seen on 2.4 GHz. So if you have a choice with your config, give 5 GHz a try, or at least do the throughput comparison. You may be stunned.
Life looks the same in locations 2 and 3, with Aruba still outpacing Cisco and the latter showing no benefit at all from its on-chip beamforming.
Finally, in our location 4 fortress of solitude, Cisco beamforming shows some utility, just nudging past Aruba’s non-beamforming results. Ruckus still easily kicks dust in the others’ faces.
And here’s the kicker. Down in location 5, Aruba clings by a thread to 0.1 Mbps. Cisco can’t find a connection at all. Ruckus still nearly holds 25 Mbps. If ever there was a case for a technology to adopt in long-distance scenarios, this is it. Also, harkening back to an earlier point, now you start to see why Ruckus thinks BeamFlex can cover a large space with considerably fewer APs than alternative technologies.
- beamforming ,
- wifi ,
- ruckus
first post?!?!?!
No, REAL first, dipshit.
I don't think it's a problem that this is really only enterprise-class hardware. The very fact that there's an tenna sensitivity that can cripple the entire system shows that for Joe Apefist this is too much trouble for its own worth.
But, the tech shows amazing potential and given some tweaking time, I'm sure it will become more robust and more economical and will rapidly see adoption at home.
Personally I can't wait!
As a crude guide if you want 10dB gain over omnidirectional (10x the power in some direction) then you need to have 10 antenae to cover all directions. It works but with an obvious price in money and size, and a more subtle one in intereference for/from other transmitters unlucky enough to be in the chosen direction.
Personally I'd prefer multiple omni basestations and just focus on minimising distance. Inverse square law is your friend.
Personally I'd prefer multiple omni basestations and just focus on minimising distance. Inverse square law is your friend.
:-)
Yeh totally why punch through 4 walls when you can punch through 2. Plus you can site access points/ repeaters in free space away from mwave reflective objects.
Also note that much more important to enterprise wireless LANs is NOT the raw AP to single client thoughput that so many of these gearhead tests do. We are constantly faced with offering stable and usable wifi for dozens to hundreds of concurrent users in crowded areas (conference centers, auditoriums....) Like any shared medium, Wifi suffers from co-channel interference and overly RF loud clients.
One BIG advantage that you will see enterprise vendors work towards is NOT how much speed to any one client you can get, but how much Reduced interference beamforming will allow to neighboring wireless APs in the same ESS. The net result is that all users see benefit of solid and stable wireless connectivity.