Most reliable AC AP (for 20 clients+)

[zsero]

Hi,

I am looking for a reliable AP which can handle 20+ clients. The physical space is very little, pretty much it's a crowded office with lot of people working at shared tables.

I'm looking for an AP which can handle this situation. Most laptops are newer Macs, thus they support AC.

At the moment there is an Asus N55 router + ADSL modem combo, and the performance is terrible. Clients constantly get dropped and disconnected for minutes.

I'm pushing for a wired-only network, but most people in the office don't agree with me, they really want wireless.

What I know for sure is that I'll separate the router + wireless, probably I'll go with an EdgeRouter Lite for the router.

But for the wireless I am in trouble. Is there any reliable AC access point which can handle this many clients?

I'm thinking about the Ubiquiti UniFi UAP AC, but in an other thread Cloud200 told me that that product isn't stable yet.

1. Is it true generally, or maybe it was just a particular unit he had?
2. Do any other vendor make a reliable AC AP which works well?
3. How about the Apple AC? Is that a serious contender? I like the fact that it has regular firmware updates, and says up to 50 clients on the website. I don't like the fact that it's extremely limited, but for an AP it might not be a limitation.

 

[L&LD]

2. Asus, Netgear and even Linksys may all be possible candidates for a reliable AP only mode.

3. Serious contender? No. Not if you value performance/dollar.


I would be considering the AC1900 models 'only' as they seem to have better components and would help keep the performance as high as possible.

In your case, after settling on the router of your choice - I would be buying all three options and trying them out over a week, then, keeping the best one.

You may even find that two work better together than any single unit will.

 

[zsero]

2. Asus, Netgear and even Linksys may all be possible candidates for a reliable AP only mode.

3. Serious contender? No. Not if you value performance/dollar.


I would be considering the AC1900 models 'only' as they seem to have better components and would help keep the performance as high as possible.

In your case, after settling on the router of your choice - I would be buying all three options and trying them out over a week, then, keeping the best one.

You may even find that two work better together than any single unit will.

Do you think that Asus, Netgear and even Linksys would ever be reliable for 20+ devices? We now have a previously high-end Asus and it's totally rubbish. I have a feeling that these home oriented brands might be very good in benchmarks, but their software is totally not up to the task when used in business environment.

So far I'm leaning towards UniFi.

 

[sinshiva]

honestly, for 20 people on wireless (not just 20 devices), i think you're going to want to divide the traffic onto at least 2 APs. i'm not sure how well even business solutions would do with that many people on a single AP.

 

[zsero]

On Ubiquity forums people are talking about 30-60 users / AP. Is it really that hard?

 

[sinshiva]

well, ubiquiti are a bunch of wireless freaks xD

are they talking like 30 to 60 people on a single AP or a unifi system with multiple?

thing with wifi is that each AP is essentially a wireless hub, all the clients are (essentially) sharing air time, and that's before taking into consideration signal quality, interference, neighbors, etc. even if all 20 people weren't doing much more than checking the news, simultaneously, i'd expect a significant hit even without saturating the internet bandwidth. i installed business class PoE APs for restaurants a couple years back, same bubble looking things you see at starbucks and such, and i wasn't very impressed. of course, wireless has evolved a bit since then, but physics is still physics. until wireless APs start assigning clients their own frequencies, wifi will never truly match wired performance, so the best option is to use multiple APs.

of course, ubiquiti's unifi system handles multiple APs better than most, not saying anything remotely like they aren't worth looking into, but you could probably get the performance you want by adding one or two more APs

 

[zsero]

So what you are saying is that a 3-pack 2.4 Ghz N UniFi would probably be better than a single AC?

 

[sinshiva]

yea, and a lot cooler to see in action, too lol

 

[thiggins]

Clients per AP is tricky. A lot depends on how busy the airspace is and what the nature of your traffic is.

The experiments I ran for How Much Throughput Can You Really Get From An AC Router? hold true for an AP, too.

Remember that the 2.4 GHz half of an AC router is N450 class if operating with N450 clients. Assuming most clients are only 2x2 and that you are operating only with 20 MHz bandwidth, maximum link rate is 130 Mbps. So best case throughput will be, say 80 - 90 Mbps. Divide by 20 and you get around 4 Mbps per client, if all were continuously busy.

To get the maximum available bandwidth, all clients would need to be AC and operate on 5 GHz. If your Macs are 3x3, then max 5 GHz link rate will be 1300 Mbps. This increases maximum bandwidth to the mid 300 Mbps range, a 3x+ improvement.

Of course, operating in 5 GHz, throughput drops very quickly. Depending on how large your area is, this would vote for multiple APs for better coverage. Multiple APs, operating on different channels provides higher total bandwidth, because each AP gets its own airspace.

I strongly suggest bandwidth limiting if you want more reliable wireless operation. This prevents bandwidth hogs and also keeps APs from getting overwhelmed.

I wasn't that impressed with Ubiquiti's UAP-AC. Very expensive and poor 5 GHz performance. Maybe they have improved performance by now with better firmware. Also check our review of the UniFi OS. It has a pretty complete feature set, including the ability to configure user groups and set up and downlink bandwidth caps per group.

To sum up, unless you manage user bandwidth, you will probably run out of wireless bandwidth before you "overload" a decent AP. Many times the flakiness that people attribute to hardware is just people trying to squeeze more out of 802.11 than possible.

 

[zsero]

I totally agree with you, and I'm strongly pushing to have all laptops connected wired, and only use wireless if needed.

The problem is that Apple's philosophy of not including any network ports + only including 2 USB and 1 Thunderbolt is making it a total nightmare to connect these laptops to a network, as everyone definitely hates if you "take" one of the USB ports. The ideal solution is of course the Thunderbird adapter, but unless a unit has 2 TB ports, you cannot use it when connected to a screen.

The reason I'm leaning towards Unify APs is that they have a very sophisticated management software which makes it possible to load-balance devices between APs, something which I don't think any cheaper models could do (without 3rd party firmware).

So it seems that a 3 pack of the basic model Unify 2.4 Ghz APs is a better solution than even the most expensive AC APs in the market?

@thiggins, I absolutely totally love this site, but the tricky thing is that the reviews/tests might mean absolutely nothing about specific real-world scenarios, for example like how does an AP handle 20 devices. One super top #1 model might totally go insane at that number, while some other not very highly rated model might be actually quite good.

This is something, where for example the expensive-not-good-price-ratio brands might actually be much better than Asus, TP-Link, etc.

But yes, the only way would be to buy an Asus AC68 from Amazon, test it for 2 weeks, send it back, buy a Netgear/TP-Link/etc. test it for 2 weeks, send it back, do the same with Unify 3 x 2.4, 1 x 5 ghz, etc.

 

[thiggins]

@thiggins, I absolutely totally love this site, but the tricky thing is that the reviews/tests might mean absolutely nothing about specific real-world scenarios, for example like how does an AP handle 20 devices. One super top #1 model might totally go insane at that number, while some other not very highly rated model might be actually quite good.

This is something, where for example the expensive-not-good-price-ratio brands might actually be much better than Asus, TP-Link, etc.

You're correct that our test methodology is relatively simple. Maybe you'll find this more useful.

 

[KGB7]

The rule of thumb is; a network/server should not see more then 50% usage under normal conditions.

Now take an average scenario, where all the people with their devices are connected to Wifi, now double the capacity. If you have 30 wifi devices, and AP can only provide 300Mbps, then only 2 devices should connect per AP. Plus we dont know how each user will use the wifi for. If its just internet surfing and sending emails, then you can have 10 clients per AP. But, if every one decides to watch Beiber videos at the same time, then single AP might not cut the mustard.
So double up on your capacity.


You can have 6 AP's, but you will have to manually assign each client to specific AP so it doesnt over load one specific AP. Depending on the size of the office, you might have to strategically place multiple AP's in same location such as conference room. Especially if they do video conferencing.

UniFi is good way to go, since it will give you a flexibility to control the network and clients that connect to it from single point.


If they demand wifi, then tell them to open their check book. At the end of the day, money dictates the limit of the sky.

So get 6 UniFi AC AP's. 1/3 of the users will be on 2.4ghz band, and 2/3 of the users will be on 5Ghz band. It will be balanced. At the end of the day, your network it self will be the weak point.

 

[thiggins]

If you have 30 wifi devices, and AP can only provide 300Mbps, then only 2 devices should connect per AP.

That is very unrealistic and impractical advice.

 

[KGB7]

That is very unrealistic and impractical advice.

,....................

 

[connorm]

Some fellow on Linksysinfo forums mentioned that while running Tomato RAF on his RT-AC66U that he was able to handle 60+ clients with no performance drop, when he said with the stock Asus firmware it was horrible.

Quote " stock firmware is really unstable under heavy usage (tested last asus fw and merlin fw) in our company... 60+ connected clients = no problem for tomato, but with asus fw it is unstable and useless. my two cent

Elfew, Jan 31, 2014 "

Ill separate my suggestions into price ranges

Low End: RT-AC56U (Running Tomato) ($120 newegg.com)
Mid Range: RT-AC66U (Running Tomato)($190) OR Netgear R7000($200)
High End: Aruba AP-225 ($1100) OR Cisco Aironet 3700 ($1300)

I would like to suggest the Linksys WRT-1900 aswell but it could be a piece of crap when it comes out (highly doubtful) and its not gonna be out for another month or 2 (i think). Tomato will also be working for the Netgear R7000 very soon. and will eventually be out on the WRT-1900.

This video is a must watch, if the numbers they claim are real, i think that the Aruba AP-225 might be the best AC AP there is. maybe Thiggins should message them and try to get one to test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xevqGhJ44LM (how do i embed?)

Do keep in mind Cisco has released there 3700 now aswell which is a purpose build AC AP but its $1300 and i still doubt its better then the Aruba AP-225.

But overall if i had my choice id take the Aruba AP.

 

[L&LD]

I just can't help thinking that their WiFi tests were somehow 'rigged' like the useless drop test was on that video.

I would take the numbers with a grain of salt, unless others can substantiate those numbers.

Remote controlled helicopter, really? To move the tested laptop? What are we, 12?

 

[sinshiva]

/me hides blade msr...

 

[connorm]

I just can't help thinking that their WiFi tests were somehow 'rigged' like the useless drop test was on that video.

I would take the numbers with a grain of salt, unless others can substantiate those numbers.

Remote controlled helicopter, really? To move the tested laptop? What are we, 12?

hmm. i didnt think it was rigged. + those throughput numbers look like what most AC routers should be gettings, but all have almost a sudden drop off in bandwidth. i still think that Aruba AP is the best one on the market. only thing i would even consider comparing would be a more expensive Cisco Aironet 3700

L&LD, do you think any currently available home/soho AC routers or APs actually have better throughput then the Aruba? i don't

edit: im pretty sure it would be hard to fake a performance report like this :

http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/TR_Miercom_02Oct2013.pdf

that shows some pretty damn high throughput numbers

but as i expected, cisco 3700 is much better then the 3600 for AC, here is a comparison between the Cisco 3700 and the Aruba AP aswell, for fair comparison (both true ac1900 AP's)

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5678/ps13367/miercom-report-cisco-ap-3702i.pdf

and one key point about the cisco test


Greater performance was demonstrated using 4x4:3 802.11ac
support and ClientLink 3.0 in rate versus range testing

 

[krum]

I had 15 laptops on my wireless they were playing league if legends, in the 2.4ghz while my wife streaming netflix and those 15 people connected there smart phones to the wireless 5ghz so a total if 31 device on my router running tomato RAF rt-ac66 if that helps

Chris



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sinshiva]

I had 15 laptops on my wireless they were playing league if legends, in the 2.4ghz while my wife streaming netflix and those 15 people connected there smart phones to the wireless 5ghz so a total if 31 device on my router running tomato RAF rt-ac66 if that helps

Chris



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that's good. though it's kind of apples to oranges. obviously your bandwidth was mostly being soaked up via 5ghz; how was the latency for LoL in comparison to a wired connection for you? and how much of a hit did netflix have on that latency?

with non fps games, you can generally get away with 200-400ms latency, which is about what i'd expect with that arrangement + netflix. you could probably bring that number down a bit with QoS.

OPs arrangement means an order of magnitude more data passing over wifi and via many, many more connections simultaneously than just gaming, though. most of the problems i foresee with cramming many people onto a single AP is that it would be like a half duplex wired connection that was also much more susceptible to the elements, and via hub versus a switch. there's a lot working against you with wifi. the best you can do is try to get as many different clients on independent frequencies as possible