Cisco Cisco Aironet 1850e Access Points 백서
IEEE 802.11ac Wave 2 AP’s: Cisco, Aruba, Ruckus
13
DR151120D
Copyright © Miercom 2015
5 February 2016
Results
The below graph shows the variation in aggregate downlink throughput for the APs tested, as
client density increases by 10-client increments up to 100.
The below graph shows the variation in aggregate downlink throughput for the APs tested, as
client density increases by 10-client increments up to 100.
The Cisco 3702i was included in these tests to show the higher end of Cisco AP performance.
With this real-world mix of clients, frequency bands and IEEE 802.11 technologies, the results
show that the Cisco 1852i AP performs better than either the Ruckus R710 or the Aruba AP-325.
As the number of clients increases, the overall average throughput decreases slightly with all the
APs tested. However, the Cisco APs deliver comparable performance across the client-density
spectrum, despite the lower cost of the 1852i.
Failed clients.
As noted, we recorded cases where one or more clients remained ping-able during and after the
test run, but still sent or received no data during the test. We adjudicated these as “no-
bandwidth” clients, where in all likelihood the AP failed to share bandwidth to all clients.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A
gg
re
gate
D
o
wn
lin
k
Th
ro
u
gh
p
u
t
(M
b
p
s)
Number of Active Clients
10-100-Client TCP Downlink Performance
Cisco 1852i
Cisco 3702i
Ruckus R710
Cisco 1832i
Aruba AP-325
Source Miercom November 2015