Cisco Cisco Aironet 1572IC Outdoor Access Point Libro blanco
Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point
Page 7
High-Client Density Test:
100 Clients
100 Clients
In another test, we sought to load
the APs with a mixed set of real
world clients and see how well they
scale,
the APs with a mixed set of real
world clients and see how well they
scale,
performance-wise,
under
heavy stress as the number of
clients contending for airtime on the
same AP grows.
clients contending for airtime on the
same AP grows.
Shown
on
the
right
is
the
assortment of clients included in this
test. The client mix was applied in
increments of 10 and each new
increment (20, 30, 40 etc.) was
tested separately. The clients’
distribution operating over 5GHz
and 2.4-GHz frequency bands was
70 and 30 percent, respectively, and
was maintained throughout the
testing.
test. The client mix was applied in
increments of 10 and each new
increment (20, 30, 40 etc.) was
tested separately. The clients’
distribution operating over 5GHz
and 2.4-GHz frequency bands was
70 and 30 percent, respectively, and
was maintained throughout the
testing.
To
assess
the
difference
in
performance between the Cisco AP
with external antenna (1572e) and
the AP model with internal antenna
(1572i),
with external antenna (1572e) and
the AP model with internal antenna
(1572i),
both
were
separately
tested.
As the results in
Figure 1
on
page 1
of this report show, both Cisco AP
models worked at basically the
same level of performance with
each incremental increase in clients.
models worked at basically the
same level of performance with
each incremental increase in clients.
To summarize, the Cisco 1572
access points consistently out-
performed the Aruba AP-275 and
the Ruckus T300.
access points consistently out-
performed the Aruba AP-275 and
the Ruckus T300.
For TCP down-link performance, the
Cisco 1572 delivered from 15 to 50
percent better throughput per client,
on average, than the Aruba AP-275.
Cisco 1572 delivered from 15 to 50
percent better throughput per client,
on average, than the Aruba AP-275.
Similarly,
for
TCP
down-link
performance,
the
Cisco
1572
delivered from 38 to 70 percent
better throughput per client, on
average, than the Ruckus T300.
better throughput per client, on
average, than the Ruckus T300.
Bottom Line
This testing exercised the Cisco,
Aruba and Ruckus Access Points
for throughput performance in a
broad range of outdoor scenarios. In
every
Aruba and Ruckus Access Points
for throughput performance in a
broad range of outdoor scenarios. In
every
test,
the
Cisco
1572
outperformed the competitive APs
from Aruba and Ruckus.
from Aruba and Ruckus.
100 client mix. A potpourri of popular wireless client
devices was included in the high-client density test.
When fully populated, all 100 real-world connected with
the same AP. The MacBook Pro and the iPad Air
devices supported 802.11n; all the rest supported the
latest 802.11ac.
devices was included in the high-client density test.
When fully populated, all 100 real-world connected with
the same AP. The MacBook Pro and the iPad Air
devices supported 802.11n; all the rest supported the
latest 802.11ac.
Indoor venue. Due to the difficulty of testing such a
large number of devices outside, this testing was done
indoors. Clients were all distributed 10 to 45 feet from
the AP, which in the shot below was the Aruba AP-275.
large number of devices outside, this testing was done
indoors. Clients were all distributed 10 to 45 feet from
the AP, which in the shot below was the Aruba AP-275.
Figure 11: High Client Density Test Results Summary
Average per-client TCP downlink throughput (Mbps)
Average per-client TCP downlink throughput (Mbps)
Aruba AP-275
Cisco Aironet
1572e
Ruckus T300
282
177
374
228
414
302
422
301
0
100
200
300
400
500
100
Mbps
Numbe
r
o
f
C
lie
nts
Cisco 1572i
Cisco 1572e
Aruba AP-275
Ruckus T300
100
20