Wireless and RF

Reply
Occasional Contributor II

AP Load Balancing vs. Spectrum Load Balancing

Hi All,

As we know, old fashioned AP load balancing has been pulled from 3.4.

Recently, I did some extended testing with a school customer. Typical scenario, 20 laptops all logging in at the same time. The classroom areas are typically covered by at least 2 APs (in this case 3 or 4 x AP61). The laptops are cheap ones, but they do have 4965agn adapters which we pushed up to 13.0.0.107 drivers.

In summary, when running 3.3.3.1 with AP LB on, the clients spread nicely over all APs in range (approx 3 APs with 6 laptops each). When you use 3.4 code (latest rev), the SLB seems to have no impact on the clients. They all stubbornly attach to the nearest AP (even if there's only a couple of DB difference (i.e. in the next room) to the other APs).

Before anybody volunteers it, I appreciate this is most likely due to the clients being poor.

Regardless, in this scenario, old fashioned AP LB worked much better than Spectrum LB (looking at it from a "switch on and go" point of view, which is what customers want).

So, I guess my suggestion is, as well as SLB moving forward can we have support for AP LB back please? ;-) I fully appreciate the negative potentials of the AP LB mechanics, but in certain cases (crappy clients that you can't change), it works well. As long as it's understood that the features may be mutally exclusive, this might not be problematic?

As a side comment, if anybody knows of a good tweak for the client adapters/drivers I mentioned above to make them play nice with SLB, I'd love to hear about it. I tried, but to no avail.

J.
Guru Elite

Slb


Hi All,

As we know, old fashioned AP load balancing has been pulled from 3.4.

Recently, I did some extended testing with a school customer. Typical scenario, 20 laptops all logging in at the same time. The classroom areas are typically covered by at least 2 APs (in this case 3 or 4 x AP61). The laptops are cheap ones, but they do have 4965agn adapters which we pushed up to 13.0.0.107 drivers.

In summary, when running 3.3.3.1 with AP LB on, the clients spread nicely over all APs in range (approx 3 APs with 6 laptops each). When you use 3.4 code (latest rev), the SLB seems to have no impact on the clients. They all stubbornly attach to the nearest AP (even if there's only a couple of DB difference (i.e. in the next room) to the other APs).

Before anybody volunteers it, I appreciate this is most likely due to the clients being poor.

Regardless, in this scenario, old fashioned AP LB worked much better than Spectrum LB (looking at it from a "switch on and go" point of view, which is what customers want).

So, I guess my suggestion is, as well as SLB moving forward can we have support for AP LB back please? ;-) I fully appreciate the negative potentials of the AP LB mechanics, but in certain cases (crappy clients that you can't change), it works well. As long as it's understood that the features may be mutally exclusive, this might not be problematic?

As a side comment, if anybody knows of a good tweak for the client adapters/drivers I mentioned above to make them play nice with SLB, I'd love to hear about it. I tried, but to no avail.

J.




Jake,

Did you verify that spectrum load balancing was active? When you do a "show ap active" and see an "L" next to those APs? Did you also check the "show ap arm state" command to see if APs are seen by others?

In the example below, the second AP is doing spectrum load balancing currently:

(Ctrl-L01) #show ap active

Active AP Table
---------------
Name Group IP Address 11g Clients 11g Ch/EIRP/MaxEIRP 11a Clients 11a Ch/EIRP/MaxEIRP AP Type Flags Uptime
---- ----- ---------- ----------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------- ----- ------
Adm-Lib-RW4530d-J3238d3 Academic 172.49.216.192 0 AP:HT:1/20.5/33 0 AP:HT:149+/19/36 125 Ada 27d:22h:25m:8s
Adm-Lib-RW4535-J3235 Academic 172.20.18.236 2 AP:HT:6/20.5/33:L 0 AP:HT:157+/19/36 125 Ada 7d:18h:49m:37s
Adm-Lib-RW4550-J3230d2 Academic 172.49.221.68 5 AP:HT:1/17.5/33 0 AP:HT:48-/20/23 125 Ada 21d:0h:0m:19s

Flags: R = Remote AP; P = PPPOE; E = Wired AP enabled; A = Enet1 in active/standby mode;
L = Client Balancing Enabled; D = Disconn. Extra Calls On; B = Battery Boost On;
X = Maintenance Mode; d = Drop Mcast/Bcast On; N = 802.11b protection disabled;
a = Reduce ARP packets in the air; S = RFprotect Sensor; d = Disconnected Sensor

Channel followed by "*" indicates channel selected due to unsupported configured channel.

Num APs:3



Colin Joseph
Aruba Customer Engineering

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

Occasional Contributor II

Re: AP Load Balancing vs. Spectrum Load Balancing

Yep.
Guru Elite

Open a case




Well,

I suggest you have a case opened.



Colin Joseph
Aruba Customer Engineering

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

Occasional Contributor II

Re: AP Load Balancing vs. Spectrum Load Balancing

The main purpose of my post, was just to indicate that we'd like AP load balancing back. Even if it's unsupported and not very good from an engineering perspective.

Thanks.
Search Airheads
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: