Wireless AC - Vendor says...

D

Dillirium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 16, 2004
Messages
439
All,

I just want to get your input on something. I work with a vendor that installed a wireless network before I had started at this company I work for. I've complained many times that the wireless is not as advertised and that we also get lost packets 1-2% usually. The vendor has stated that up to 2% packet loss is acceptable.

The access points are ARUBA iap-224 (AC 1900).

The clients achieve a max connection of 600 mbps and we lose normally 1-2% packets. Sometimes a channel seems to go bad (for whatever reason) and we get anywhere between 2%-7% packet loss (this is more rare).

Do you find this acceptable?

Do you find that any packet loss is acceptable for stationary desktops with PCE-AC68 wireless cards?

I'm refraining from posting my complete BIASED information before I hear back from you folks and your opinions.

Thank you,
Dill
 
It depends on many factors including how your building is laid out and constructed (ie wood frame, steel, open or close areas, etc), where your APs are placed, co-channel interference, wireless drivers/manufacturers on the client side, etc.

Typically though, with a fair amount of clients though pushing traffic through, you will see some dropped packets here and there because, to put it simply, wireless is a very "polite" protocol and even the best wireless setups when there is any kind of load will have some packet loss due to client/ap having to wait for others to finish sending or receiving.

Those are my general thoughts. Now, on to more specifics. I personally have used ARUBA in a few places and we ALWAYS end up replacing them. They don't really handle moderate/high client load very well, in my experience. The two vendors I've had the best experiences with are Xirrus and Ruckus. I personally prefer the Xirrus for the non-centralized controller design and the fact that I can have more than 2 radios per AP (Some go up to 8-16!) as well as being able to turn a 2 radio AP into a dual 5 GIG AP. As far as I know, right now, no one else can do that. I work with a lot of public schools and with everything going to a 1:1 deployment, wifi is critical now more than it ever has been. Those are the two vendors I've had the most success with.
 
Last edited:
Wireless can be a schizophrenic bitch and it's pretty tough to say what the issue may be without more information. That said, is there a valid reason that stationary desktops are relying on wireless? Wireless can be a great tool and convenient, but you should also make sure it's the right tool for the job. Just because it may be cheaper or easier doesn't mean it's the right solution.
 
Wireless is one of those things that I like to tell people " I can give you three reasons it isn't working, but I can't give you just one..."

So many variables involved it's impossible to give any kind of feedback or troubleshooting without being there in the environment and monitoring every possible detail.

And we have 300+ aruba AP environment and it works really well. Isn't anecdotal evidence great?

The only vendor I've ever used that didn't deliver on promises was Aerohive but in all fairness to them when I evaluated them they were fairly new and didn't have their pre-sales support up to par for the volume of requests they were getting. They may be better now.

Also, have you tried a different model of client network adapter in the same machine/location? I've noticed a vast discrepancy in quality of connections from various manufacturers. I wouldn't call ASUS an enterprise networking brand.
 
Wireless for desktops???? hahahaha. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

That type of setup is just a bad idea.
 
It's obvious that it depends on the environment. Sometimes hard wiring isn't possible, so those of you ripping the OP for running wireless need to chill.

As Eickst says, he's had good experience with Aruba, and that's fine. Personally, I don't care for them but I'm in a highly dense environment (2-4 devices per student) and so I need something a bit beefier. That said, more than likely if your client load isn't super high, he is right you shouldn't have issues with the Aruba. Wifi is wifi afterall so more than likely you've got something else going on somewhere in the air.
 
byusinger84 said:
It's obvious that it depends on the environment. Sometimes hard wiring isn't possible, so those of you ripping the OP for running wireless need to chill.

As Eickst says, he's had good experience with Aruba, and that's fine. Personally, I don't care for them but I'm in a highly dense environment (2-4 devices per student) and so I need something a bit beefier. That said, more than likely if your client load isn't super high, he is right you shouldn't have issues with the Aruba. Wifi is wifi afterall so more than likely you've got something else going on somewhere in the air.
Click to expand...

I wasn't ripping the OP.. it was wireless before he got there.

And running wire is pretty much always possible... maybe not pretty, but possible.

As for Wireless Access points, I like Cisco. The support is stupid expensive, but you can always buy used and get a few extras in case one dies.
 
If there's anything I don't like about the Aruba it's the amount of switches you can play with. It's a good and bad thing. So many settings to change and tweak. If you're the type of person that hates using default settings for stuff look elsewhere!
 
Dillirium said:
All,

I just want to get your input on something. I work with a vendor that installed a wireless network before I had started at this company I work for. I've complained many times that the wireless is not as advertised and that we also get lost packets 1-2% usually. The vendor has stated that up to 2% packet loss is acceptable.

The access points are ARUBA iap-224 (AC 1900).

The clients achieve a max connection of 600 mbps and we lose normally 1-2% packets. Sometimes a channel seems to go bad (for whatever reason) and we get anywhere between 2%-7% packet loss (this is more rare).

Do you find this acceptable?

Do you find that any packet loss is acceptable for stationary desktops with PCE-AC68 wireless cards?

I'm refraining from posting my complete BIASED information before I hear back from you folks and your opinions.

Thank you,
Dill
Click to expand...

I think that regardless of the vendor for Wireless gear, you may be either dealing with an overload of clients on your infrastructure and/or a Wacky environmental issue. Eitherway, we don't have anywhere near enough info to really form an opinion.

How many clients on average?
How many APs?
What bands?
Are they spread out on channels?
Do you have any trafficshaping enabled on the Aruba Controller that may be manifesting itself as packetloss?
Are there any other WiFi networks in the area? If so, How many and on what bands?
 
byusinger84 said:
As Eickst says, he's had good experience with Aruba, and that's fine. Personally, I don't care for them but I'm in a highly dense environment (2-4 devices per student) and so I need something a bit beefier.
Click to expand...

A bit beefier than the Aruba 220 series? Out of curiosity, what are you running?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top