If you were deploying all new APs today, N or AC?
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Depends on your needs but typically N. The cost is too much lower and almost no one has a need for AC yet. But those that do, it may be worth it.
At a price differents of $50 per AC AP? Wouldn't it make sense to step on up to the newer tech? Especially if you are planning to lease the equipment for 3 - 5 years?
Agreed. There are already plenty of laptops shipping with AC wifi cards installed in them. It's not the norm YET but given another year or two and it will be.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
AC might improve range, maybe, but to do so wouldn't it have to exist on both ends? Otherwise your AC system is using N and you are still limited by the N devices.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
AC might improve range, maybe, but to do so wouldn't it have to exist on both ends? Otherwise your AC system is using N and you are still limited by the N devices.
Absolutely. You'd still be limited to N speeds, but you'd have a greater range physically, which means you can actually use fewer APs to cover the same amount of space. Theoretically.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
FYI these are not channels, these are bands. The 2.4GHz band has eleven standard channels inside of it.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
2.4 on a AC AP is still N. AC is only 5Ghz.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
FYI these are not channels, these are bands. The 2.4GHz band has eleven standard channels inside of it.
My bad. I misused the term. I do know the difference. I'm just doing too much at once right now.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Absolutely. You'd still be limited to N speeds, but you'd have a greater range physically, which means you can actually use fewer APs to cover the same amount of space. Theoretically.
No, the limit would be both the speed as well as the range. Can't think of any physical way that going to AC on the AP can change the range of the mobile device.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
2.4 on a AC AP is still N. AC is only 5Ghz.
Does AC on 5GHz even go as far as N on 2.4GHz then?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
No. Fiber is really only needed if the distance requires it. Install multiple runs of Cat7 (even stp) will be cheaper than fiber if its within limits.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
Higher power means nothing. Nor is that related to buying an AC AP, is related to the specific model you bought.
With APs its better to use lower power (hence why we use minium RSSI in deployments) as it keeps edge devices from slowing down everyone else. A device that can connect but can also send back slowly will slow everyone else down. This is the case with things like the UAP LR and the reason they aren't a good choice for connecting endpoint devices.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
Assuming buildings are farther apart than copper will handle. Even between buildings copper can be fine when the buildings are close.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
If your goal is higher powered N, buy a better N AP, not an AC AP.
-
@g.jacobse said:
There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Because fiber comes with loads of caveats, the biggest ones being cost. Unless you are dropping packets with copper, fiber has literally no performance or reliability advantage. If you are dropping packets, you need to address what is wrong with your copper. EM should not impact you under normal conditions.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
If your goal is higher powered N, buy a better N AP, not an AC AP.
Yes, but if you can gain the range benefit and also have the AC ready to go when your computers start coming with AC cards, why not?
