Wireless Access

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

Temporary high density deployment and/or supplementing existing coverage

 

In the near future we will be hosting several training sessions. 

 

2 classrooms - 500 & 1000 sq feet - located on different floors on the building.

 

Approx 15-20 laptops in the small room, 30-40 in the large room.

 

Using Exchange, and a web-based on-line ticketing system.

 

Current deployment is for coverage with an AP105 approx every 40-50 feet, and these APs already average around 14 connected users.

 

The largest room has an AP105 located in the room.  The smaller room has 3 AP105 nearby - 1 20 feet away (front of room), 1 30 ft (rear of room), and another AP105 on the floor beneath the room.


 

I have some AP135 that I can deploy, but my question is this:

 

Should I temporarily deploy an additional AP135 in each area?   If so, will doing that affect  the existing users or environment?

 

Do I need to consider creating a new wireless profile and following the best practices for a high density environment?  I know that throwing another AP out there with a new network won't do me any favors as far as the RF environment, but it will give me a dedicated network for the training sessions.

 

This will really be the first time I've had more than 15-20 connected users per AP, so I don't know what to expect.  I know the 135 is about 50% "beefier" than the 105.

 

I don't have access to the ticketing system, nor do I have access to 20+ laptops.  I can probably round up 10 laptops. I figured I could get them all connected and start streaming videos to see how the network reacts.  We have a 100/100 broadband connection, so I don't expect that to be an issue, but I have to make sure the wireless network isn't going to puke.

 

Is the 15-20 and 30-40 connected users within the capabilities of these access points?

 

I can't really make any changes to the existing wireless networks without fear of suddenly decreasing coverage or causing other potential issues.

 

I'm open for suggestions.

Aruba
Posts: 1,368
Registered: ‎12-12-2011

Re: Temporary high density deployment and/or supplementing existing coverage

Are the laptops dual-band?  If so, I would venture to say you can safely deploy new APs in that area BUT have the 2.4 radios in AM mode.  Only make active the 5GHz radios.  That should add the capacity you need minus the CCI more prevalent in 2.4 and allow you to slip in these APs without making changes to the existing config.

Seth R. Fiermonti
Consulting Systems Engineer - ACCX, ACDX, ACMX
Email: seth@hpe.com
-----
If you found my post helpful, please give kudos
Regular Contributor I
Posts: 204
Registered: ‎09-28-2010

Re: Temporary high density deployment and/or supplementing existing coverage

Yes, the clients are dual-band.  If I do go the route of putting 2.4 in AM (hadn't thought about that option), won't I still need to create a new AP group/profile?

 

Are there any issues with having another AP group/profile using the same LMS?

Aruba
Posts: 1,368
Registered: ‎12-12-2011

Re: Temporary high density deployment and/or supplementing existing coverage

No. There shouldn't be an issue. However, you can make ap specific changes within an ap group

Sent from my iPhone
Seth R. Fiermonti
Consulting Systems Engineer - ACCX, ACDX, ACMX
Email: seth@hpe.com
-----
If you found my post helpful, please give kudos
Regular Contributor I
Posts: 204
Registered: ‎09-28-2010

Re: Temporary high density deployment and/or supplementing existing coverage

Okay, I wasn't aware that it was possible to make AP specific changes.....I may have to look more into that option.

 

I'm now being told the training sessions may also grow into a 3 room....on a different floor.  Approx 2000 sq ft (85 x 20-25).

 

I think the preferred method is going to be to set up another WLAN profile to be used strictly for these sessions.

 

I only have 4 AP135 to use. 

 

500 sq ft room will have approx 20 users.

1000 sq ft room will have approx 30 users.

2000 sq ft room will have approx 40 users.

 

Is there any reason to think that I will need more than 1 AP135 each in the 500 & 1000 sq ft rooms, and 2 in the 2000 sq ft room?

 

If so, I may have to delay an office upgrade and use some AP105.....or steal some AP105 from other parts of the building.

Guru Elite
Posts: 21,010
Registered: ‎03-29-2007

Re: Temporary high density deployment and/or supplementing existing coverage


COLE1 wrote:

Okay, I wasn't aware that it was possible to make AP specific changes.....I may have to look more into that option.

 

I'm now being told the training sessions may also grow into a 3 room....on a different floor.  Approx 2000 sq ft (85 x 20-25).

 

I think the preferred method is going to be to set up another WLAN profile to be used strictly for these sessions.

 

I only have 4 AP135 to use. 

 

500 sq ft room will have approx 20 users.

1000 sq ft room will have approx 30 users.

2000 sq ft room will have approx 40 users.

 

Is there any reason to think that I will need more than 1 AP135 each in the 500 & 1000 sq ft rooms, and 2 in the 2000 sq ft room?  This is the right approach

 

If so, I may have to delay an office upgrade and use some AP105.....or steal some AP105 from other parts of the building.


COLE1,

 

You will need only as much as you indicated.  In a pinch you could also probably get away with AP105s if you are pressed since this is a web application vs. a high bandwidth one.  .  Like Fiermonti suggested, if you can put those access points into the same AP-Group and only broadcast the single Virtual AP that will be used for that application, that will cut down on clients not related to your application and reduce utilization.  It will also possibly keep users from neighboring rooms that can see those APs from attaching.

 

Make sure that you test even before the day with limited clients to eliminate any other unseen issues. 

 



Colin Joseph
Aruba Customer Engineering

Looking for an Answer? Search the Community Knowledge Base Here: Community Knowledge Base

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