Skip to main content

Why Your Wi-Fi Sucks And How It Can Be Helped, Part 2

Welcome To The Wi-Fi Cage Match

We took a lengthy journey through the ins and outs of Wi-Fi signals in last week's Why Your Wi-Fi Sucks And How It Can Be Helped, Part 1, examining many of the factors that can both damage and improve signal performance. This week, it’s time to tie it all together in a real-world arena and let vying wireless technologies duke it out to the death—sometimes almost literally.

As we mentioned before, prior attempts to stage this sort of test failed because the results were too variable to be accurate. We regrouped, though, and came back with a new test setup that proved far more reliable and useful. In the image below, you see a panorama view of our test environment. Essentially, this is an empty office environment we filled with 60 Dell notebooks and nine iPad and iPad 2 tablets. We then picked five competing access points and their respective controllers (when applicable) and tested them in various scenarios. All told, the rental bill totaled about $15 000, and a testing team put in three heavy days of benchmarking time. You simply don’t see wireless interference testing done at this scale in the wild.

As we suggested in the first part of this story, we’re unaware of any testing ever having been done quite like this. Our objective was to test access point performance under heavy interference conditions, and from this derive some sense of how the wireless technologies we previously examined play out in the real world. If you missed our prior article, we strongly suggest reviewing it now. Otherwise, the results we explain later may not make as much sense.

In the following pages, we’ll take a look at our access point contestants, how we tested, and analyze the test results. To give you an early hint, there turns out not to be a one-size-fits-all product. Best results will vary according to the dynamics of the access point/client arrangement. Which technologies make the most sense for your situation? Keep reading!

  • winner4455
    Hey, I still haven't read this article but right away I notice the new format. Just thanking you for listening to your readers! :)
    Reply
  • cangelini
    Very welcome Winner. We thought the picture story format would work for that last part and didn't realize the text would come out to be so terrible. From now on, we'll only use picture stories when the captions fit without requiring another click!
    Reply
  • tacoslave
    cangeliniVery welcome Winner. We thought the picture story format would work for that last part and didn't realize the text would come out to be so terrible. From now on, we'll only use picture stories when the captions fit without requiring another click!"Now thats what i like to hear!"
    Reply
  • nekromobo
    What if you add few thin-foil balls to room (the size of fist or 2)

    That should add few rf-reflections or paths, right?
    Just your 2cent amplifier.. :)
    Reply
  • dead_rabbit
    However, when push came to shove,
    what does this clause mean???
    Reply
  • wifiguy99
    When will Part 1 get a makeover like this?
    Reply
  • I wonder why you didn't include Juniper products (formerly trapeze)to this test. It's quit a big player here in europe. Trapeze also produced the 3com wireless manager and accesspoints which was sold widely here.
    Reply
  • Hupiscratch
    In the page "Benchmark Results: Close Range, No Interference", the HP AP is missing on the downlink graph.
    Reply
  • Onus
    This was an outstanding article. Going just by this, Ruckus and Cisco are the only two I'd consider out of the box, but it would be very interesting to do a follow on that features even a minimal amount of tweaking to see what changes. A consumer expects a product to work well out of the box, but an enterprise network engineer almost certainly does not.
    Reply
  • Very thorough. Lots of hard work went into this and it shows. But how did you select client devices? Did you try any other chipsets? We tried something like this with more diverse clients and got results that were too variable to reach conclusions. (Some clients just did better with some APs than others.)
    Reply