Wireless Access

Reply
fn
Occasional Contributor II
Posts: 16
Registered: ‎01-27-2011

6.3.0.0 bad air performance

Hello!

I'm at testing 6.3.0.0 vs. 6.1.3.9, using two (reference) laptops.
APs: 125 and 135; Controller 3600
DELL Precision M6300 (Windows XP SP3)  DELL Wireless 1505 (BCM2328/BCM4205500)
DELL Precision M4600 (Windows 7 SP1)  Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 AGN
5Ghz, 40MHz channels, single client, absolute clean environment - no other interference or clients.


With both clients and both sorts of APs the maximal download speed is only half with AOS 6.3.0.0
compared to AOS 6.1.3.9 with otherwise same (extreme clean) environment!

HELP!

Any experiences out there?

Regular Contributor I
Posts: 204
Registered: ‎09-28-2010

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

Not running that, but will be watching to see what you find.

 

Seemed like we had some coverage "shrinkage" when we moved from 5.0.3.3 to 6.1.3.6.  Complaints would go away when I rolled back to 5.0.3.3 or moved forward to 6.1.3.8, so problem seemed isolated to 6.1.3.6, so very interested to hear of any problems with certain releases.

MVP
Posts: 562
Registered: ‎11-28-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

You've got a clean and controlled test bed. I'd log that with Aruba TAC if I were you?

Kudos appreciated, but I'm not hunting! (ACMX 104)
Aruba Employee
Posts: 42
Registered: ‎07-30-2010

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

With 6.3, the AP radio is going to scan more aggressively compared to 6.1.3.9, there's a significant difference in terms of

the channel scan rate. If clients are PS enabled, it is only going to make things worse. Could you tell us more about what exactly is the measurement factor? It'd enable us to respond precisely.

 

i.e., TCP iperf/jperf test run from one WLAN client to another, where both clients are associated to same BSS
or TCP based download from wired source?

 

Also, are the 6.1.3.9 and 6.3 codes running across two different platforms which are benchmarked side by side (with default config, of course) or are they iterations on the same test bed?

Barath Srinivasan
Customer Engineering Architect
Customer Advocacy | Aruba Networks Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did something you read in the Community solve a problem for you? If so, click "Accept as Solution", in the bottom right hand corner of the post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fn
Occasional Contributor II
Posts: 16
Registered: ‎01-27-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

>You've got a clean and controlled test bed. I'd log that with Aruba TAC if I were you? I have already made this yesterday afternoon... As far as I can see at the moment only peak performance of a single user / single tcp (http) downstream per AP is affected. As you start a second tcp (http) downstream the summ of the performance is as before (up to 6.1.3.9). (MTU,MSS,GRE-tunnel,CPSEC,ip-fragmentation?) I am curious what Aruba will say...
fn
Occasional Contributor II
Posts: 16
Registered: ‎01-27-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

There is of course yet no answer of Aruba. But, the APs 125 and 135 do not seem to be strong enough for 6.3.0.0. With one single client 100% of CPU!!!
MVP
Posts: 4,227
Registered: ‎07-20-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

 

High utlization on the AP?

Thank you

Victor Fabian
Lead Mobility Engineer @ Integration Partners
AMFX | ACMX | ACDX | ACCX | CWAP | CWDP | CWNA
fn
Occasional Contributor II
Posts: 16
Registered: ‎01-27-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

Yes.
MVP
Posts: 4,227
Registered: ‎07-20-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

 

Can you please share the show ap debug system-status ap-name <apname>

Thank you

Victor Fabian
Lead Mobility Engineer @ Integration Partners
AMFX | ACMX | ACDX | ACCX | CWAP | CWDP | CWNA
fn
Occasional Contributor II
Posts: 16
Registered: ‎01-27-2011

Re: 6.3.0.0 bad air performance

[ Edited ]

AP125 with one active client.

 

Search Airheads
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: