Zap At 2.4 And 5 GHz, Minimum
For all you video buffs, we come to the critical 99% Zap tests. We nearly decided not to include these results in this article because they’re so ridiculously one-sided. Even still, there are some (disappointing) surprises here.
Right off the bat, the big question: What on Earth happened to Cisco? How do you have 1 Mbps performance pockets at arm’s length? Aruba didn’t. Ruckus sure didn’t. This is embarrassing.
For the rest of our 2.4 GHz 99% tests, Aruba gives up its fleeting advantage, joining Cisco at the 1 Mbps pity party. But at least nobody lost a connection. That’s something.
When we switch over to the 5 GHz band, there’s more oddness. Ruckus exhibits none of the location 1 black holes found with Aruba and Cisco. Why? We’re not sure. This is much worse from Aruba and Cisco than I expected. So I grabbed the trusty Wi-Spy Spectrum Analyzer to scan location 1 for interference.
Wi-Spy results showed nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, the conclusion that both of the Aruba and Cisco products are unusable for video streaming is inescapable, although not unexpected. Actually, these results are typical for 802.11n products, which is why you haven’t seen many carriers or manufacturers marketing WiFi for video. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but the proof is in the pudding, not the PR. It’s simply been impossible to sustain a quality experience. Once more, recall my shock at the beginning of this piece.
- 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.