Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Beamforming: The Best WiFi You’ve Never Seen

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
August 17, 2009 6:23:44 AM

Tyra is an over confident wh0r3 and is not hot.

You sir are an idiot
Score
-32
August 17, 2009 7:24:36 AM

just what we need, more retarded failnoobs clogging up the airwaves with useless braindead movieclips...yaay
Score
-20
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 17, 2009 8:42:55 AM

This article started up pretty good with lots of technical data and the beamforming technology in theory but after that the goodness stopped.

1.You cannot compare two products by testing them with a in-house developed software. It's like testing ATI vs nVIDIA with nvidia made benchmark.
2.If you do something get it done, don't just go with half measures. I don't care if you didn't have time. You should have planned this from the beginning. The tests are incomplete, and the article is filled with crap of Rukus and Cisco.
Score
-6
August 17, 2009 12:44:27 PM

In defense of your wife, you didn't HAVE to use that particular channel to view all the "detail".
Score
-5
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 17, 2009 12:58:14 PM

@Mr_Man: With a name like yours, I'd think that you'd sympathize with Chris a bit more :p  Unless (Mr_Man == I likes men) :D 
Score
2
August 17, 2009 1:13:31 PM

awesome article! Thanks for exposing us to this great technology :) 
Score
10
August 17, 2009 1:17:53 PM

Both Tyra and Heidi have personal issues and would be pretty difficult friend/mate.

The network idea sounds better. I couldn’t get my 10 feet g network to transmit a tenth as much as my wired network without it dropping.
Score
-4
August 17, 2009 2:23:26 PM

There's one question that I think was not covered by the article. Can a beamformaing AP can sustain the above numbers on two different clients? Let's say we take the UDP test at 5 GHz. The result shows 7.3 Mb/s. If we had two clients at opposite sides of the AP doing the same test, would we have 7.3 Mb/s for each test or would the bandwidth be sliced in 2?

The numbers so far are astonishing, but are they realistic in a multi-client environnement? That's something I'd like to know!
Score
3
August 17, 2009 2:28:51 PM

There is so much invisible to understand in wireless technology!
Score
-1
August 17, 2009 3:01:19 PM

You can of course get the same effect by having better antenna on both ends of the network. This would increase gain which would improve signal to noise ratio, which would improve data flow speeds. You would also get the same effect by boost in the power but that could get you in trouble with the law.

Score
-6
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 17, 2009 3:04:19 PM

I'm not an expert on beamforming, but I'm surprised that it is useful at these frequencies. After all, the wavelength at 2.4 GHz is ~12 cm (~5 inches). That means that the pockets of constructive interference (the beam) are very small. Moving the receiver a few inches should make a big difference.

Are you sure the differences you are seeing aren't simply due to higher power output? Couldn't the same improvements be obtained with a directional antenna like a Yagi?
Score
1
August 17, 2009 4:00:52 PM

So far quite an interesting technology. Its nice to know that at someone in the wireless world is striving to make something innovative!

When all the major players sell items that look almost the same, act similarly, and perform almost the same, there is something wrong with the industry.
Score
1
August 17, 2009 4:13:58 PM

Beam forming technology have been for a long time, but they are mostly used in military equipments. Phased Array radars, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Plane Array Antenna and antenna for data link. Most consumer products still use Yagi or disk antenna. Cost is a major issue in the application. Military don't care that much about the cost.
Score
1
August 17, 2009 4:23:35 PM

sounds nice - but i won't get excited until it's available at Best Buy!

One niggling concern, I felt reasonably safe with the unfocused cloud of RF surrounding me wherever I go, but I am not so sure about the tightly focused beam that the Ruckus provides. What happens to the poor joe who sits directly in the path of such a beam for 8 hours a day?
Score
0
August 17, 2009 4:39:56 PM

Mr_ManIn defense of your wife, you didn't HAVE to use that particular channel to view all the "detail".

LOL! True enough. It honestly was a reference file I had on hand for such testing situations. Angelini obviously showed a bit more wisdom in his choice of in-house test content.
Score
1
August 17, 2009 4:44:22 PM

scotty123sounds nice - but i won't get excited until it's available at Best Buy! One niggling concern, I felt reasonably safe with the unfocused cloud of RF surrounding me wherever I go, but I am not so sure about the tightly focused beam that the Ruckus provides. What happens to the poor joe who sits directly in the path of such a beam for 8 hours a day?

My absolutely unqualified opinion is "probably nothing." While the conditions are somewhat different, you might want to read a Tech Myths column segment I did over on Tom's Guide that touches on this issue. http://www.tomsguide.com/us/decibels-noise-canceling,re...
Score
-1
August 17, 2009 5:17:06 PM

zak_mckrakenThere's one question that I think was not covered by the article. Can a beamformaing AP can sustain the above numbers on two different clients? Let's say we take the UDP test at 5 GHz. The result shows 7.3 Mb/s. If we had two clients at opposite sides of the AP doing the same test, would we have 7.3 Mb/s for each test or would the bandwidth be sliced in 2?The numbers so far are astonishing, but are they realistic in a multi-client environnement? That's something I'd like to know!

Excellent question, and one I hope to dive into in a later article. For now, I can only give you the anecdote on my opening page, running the same HD stream to two clients. Ruckus states that BeamFlex can sustain a 50 Mbps minimum per access point. Do the math on your client streams accordingly, I suppose.
Score
2
August 17, 2009 5:24:25 PM

williamvwLOL! True enough. It honestly was a reference file I had on hand for such testing situations. Angelini obviously showed a bit more wisdom in his choice of in-house test content.


Honestly honey, it's just a reference file, I swear it's not porn. I challenge you to find HD streaming content from the internet that highlights the subtle nuance of flesh tones.
Score
-1
August 17, 2009 5:28:11 PM

bountyHonestly honey, it's just a reference file, I swear it's not porn. I challenge you to find HD streaming content from the internet that highlights the subtle nuance of flesh tones.

Hey, the VS catalog mails to her, not me. I was merely trying to be a good husband and participate in her interests. ;-) ANYWAY. Back to beamforming, shall we?
Score
2
August 17, 2009 5:46:34 PM

Meh. I still run CAT 5e. I'll go wireless when I get the same performance as Gigabit.
Score
1
August 17, 2009 6:41:25 PM

bah, i'd take cat5e/6 and maybe a few repeaters any day over wireless headaches... and we'll probably find out later on that the headaches are cause by the tumors growing in our brains from this lol..
Score
0
August 17, 2009 6:48:05 PM

It is funny that while they are working on making draft n (yup still draft for a short while longer) better, the standards organization is working on the next step to be going towards draft... Dealing with 802.11n will be useful right up until they obsolete it sometime next year.
Score
0
August 17, 2009 6:50:53 PM

Ruckus rocks!
Score
1
August 17, 2009 7:03:13 PM

sorry crappy englis ....
i whas looking in this article if i can set-up a single AP without the expensive controller.. but not found it.
so i whent to there site where there is a nice chat function.
thy give my a straight answer.
Yes you can set it up as a single AP, no need for the controller at home.
Maybe some one whas looking for the same answer.
Score
1
August 17, 2009 7:07:01 PM

Damn, now you're making me buy Ruckus. That thing rocks!

Score
2
August 17, 2009 7:24:59 PM

Stupid Q?
Location 5
The normal way users place wifi router is horizontal = bad, as signal is like the upper part of a egg horizontal and above ground and this has more problems traveling thru walls / lower = more obstacles to get thru to get to receiver from 3 feet high router to less than 3 feet high laptop.

Q?
I presume with the ceiling mounted / upside down broadcasting from top floor to lower floors / "bottom half of egg dome shape signal" would produce better results for location 5 ?

Great performance either way.

Dew to a lack of space I always put a screw in the wall and let the router stay in a vertical position or upside down ceiling mounted and have found better performance for both horizontal signal to laptop as well as 6th floor to pool reception as alternative to horizontal placement for both holiday apartment 6th floor and house ground floor installs.

I presume it is dew to less obstacles to pass thru at lower levels in the house / more rubbish at 3or 4 feet height level and only walls / min. at 5 to 8+ feet height = beam over obstacles from ceiling mounted = more efficient.

Is there links / names of software that can make use of the 2 antenna Dell laptop config for signal / direction strength testing with a Falstad’s Antenna Applet appearance / graphical layout ?

"Metageek insider" has signal strength and fancy expensive usb + software interference tester but not for avg. user with Dell laptop.

PS> I found that having b/g/n on in linksys router instead of only g results in some extra functions active that can not be configured but uses the beam forming type to help reduce lag and errors for normal internet / lan usage.

Next Ruckus should have a ball design and hang from a string from ceiling or eqvl. or pole mounted tennis ball on antenna of a old car type appearance for full x y z transmissions especially for high rise office and or hotel usage from roof top , middle of building to ground and ceiling mounted for lobby for property transmissions ?

This could replace the upto 30+ wifi routers per 10 floor 20/40 rooms per floor hotel with 4 Ruckus units.

Q?
Using a cantenna design for directional signals to receiver idea is it worth doing the same with a wifi router or at least provide some directional signal blocking behind router on opposite side to receiver direction to help block and boost signal to receiver ?

Q?
Also reducing signal strength to reduce noise amplification is this worth it if available in wifi router. Both gets amplified where with lower signal receiver can hone in on signal better = less noise ?
Score
0
August 17, 2009 8:20:23 PM

johmmsorry crappy englis .... i whas looking in this article if i can set-up a single AP without the expensive controller.. but not found it.so i whent to there site where there is a nice chat function.thy give my a straight answer.Yes you can set it up as a single AP, no need for the controller at home.Maybe some one whas looking for the same answer.

Very true, and we should have made that clearer. The controller is for enterprise gear. The home/consumer access point just plugs straight into your switch or router -- no additional hardware necessary.
Score
2
August 18, 2009 2:15:56 AM

If it's not as hard to install as a bloody Linksys router, I'm all in.
Score
3
August 18, 2009 4:10:06 AM

Ruckus has been using this Tech for about three years now in their 2942 G series gear! I have been installing this stuff for schools where you have a high concentration of clients in the same area. I love selling it! Increadibly easy to setup and have never had a failure or issue, except from Lightning, and a vastly superior product.

I am yet to find a better solution.

Would be interested in seeing it compared to some of the Hipath Wireless gear from Enterasys.
Score
2
August 18, 2009 4:19:34 AM

@warawara

Because of the way the beam forming works with the 6000+ antenna combinations the orentation of the access point doesn't have a great effect.

They also have outdoor units that. Can' remember their product numbers off the top of my head. I know of several larg hotel installs using Ruckus gear already.

@Johnmm. The 7962 access point is a stand alone device and does not need the controler at all. None of the Ruckus gear is a "thin client" everything can be stand alone and is very easy to configure. They are NOT routers however.
Score
2
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 18, 2009 6:06:49 AM

Alot of unknowns in this test, like was any radio management used on any of the systems (ala what was the channel/power output of each), were ALL the systems on during the tests or were all the devices shut off except those being tested, why focus on a vendor's closed/proprietary testing software suite first instead of a more vendor-neutral IxChariot, etc. Not bashing beam forming, but some of the results don't make any sense, and then to leave out the testing and operational parameters (how was the Aruba configured, the Cisco configured, etc) makes it hard to accept any of the performance metric except those within the product.
Score
0
August 18, 2009 1:10:05 PM

Someone sure hates wireless to systematically mark down all comments! Care to elaborate?
Score
0
August 18, 2009 4:14:50 PM

Great article. My university just recently upgraded their entire campus wireless equipment and they got all Aruba equipment. And it's pretty terrible for the most part. The AP's seem to get easily overloaded if more than 15 people connect to one at a time. And there are a bunch of spots where you can't grab a connection. I might forward this article to the IT department...
Score
0
August 18, 2009 6:47:51 PM

I can't wait to try it!
Score
0
August 19, 2009 12:19:24 PM

I was going to drop $200 and wire up the whole house with cat6, but if i can find one of these consumer AP's then that might be in the same cost ball park while removing all cable fishing work. Thanks!
Score
0
August 19, 2009 9:20:47 PM

zak_mckrakenSomeone sure hates wireless to systematically mark down all comments! Care to elaborate?

Nah.... there are a few trolls here.
I gave most of it +1 so it should be fine now.
Score
0
August 21, 2009 5:38:10 AM

williamvwVery true, and we should have made that clearer. The controller is for enterprise gear. The home/consumer access point just plugs straight into your switch or router -- no additional hardware necessary.


I find this point to be great. I'm one of those that like to use dd-wrt in my home router. This would allow me to use a router that supports dd-wrt/openwrt and attach it to this excellent tech. If I cant put the new AP far away enough from the router then I can simply disable the wireless/AP ability of the router.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
August 21, 2009 2:11:44 PM

I streamedia white ps3 avi+720p belkin modem works good
Score
0
September 3, 2009 10:41:30 PM

I do 11-12 MEGABYTES on my Dlink 615 . Dont understand whats so good about this one . wich = 88megabits
Score
0
September 8, 2009 1:19:22 PM

Ruckus isnt the only game in town. Look at vendors like Celeno (4x4 MIMO implicit beam forming) and Quantenna.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 12:08:20 PM

I've installed a bunch of these devices, most recently in a warehouse environment. I was able to get better coverage with 50% less AP's than with a Cisco solution using omni and directional antenna combinations. The AP's work great as a stand-alone solution but in a multiple AP environment, the ZoneDirector (controller) acts as the traffic cop. The customer is extremely pleased with this solution and so are we.
Score
0
March 4, 2010 2:20:41 AM

I'm a ruckus reseller so let me know if you want to demo it out or order ;) 

jkim@novadatacom.com
Score
0
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
February 25, 2011 3:48:39 PM

What happened to the post about two other vendors that carry AP's using similar technology? Quad.... something and another one? Why remove that post?
Score
0
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 31, 2011 4:43:56 AM

Call me a cynic but I would like to see the same tests running over all the APs without a specific vendors tool (which tested best) being used. Where are the iperf results?
Score
0
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 22, 2011 7:47:09 PM

Testing like this is fine for AP performance. But many users and high density might give a different picture .....
Score
0
July 7, 2011 2:06:20 PM

Isn't this technology called phased antenna array?
The same principle, used in the radar tech.
But to get precise results you need like tens, or even hundreds antennas.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
November 28, 2011 1:36:22 PM

I'm surprised that aruba didn't do well in this test. I've used both and found the aruba often out performed the ciscos (same models as in the test). Aruba might have had bandwidth contracts enabled or were not otherwise configured properly. I've gotten 110 mbps sustained throughput using them. Their 5.0.x OS might also help (3.x was used in the test).

Also in response to the guy talking about "poor joe that sits in the beam path all day" this is non-ionizing radiation, shouldn't affect him or anything living.
Score
0
!