If you were deploying all new APs today, N or AC?
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology.
I will agree with you on this point, for sure.
You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
That depends on the brand names you are talking about... and at what scale. If you are going to buy 100 Wireless N for a total of $230k, an additional $50,000 is quite a chunk to go from N to AC. However, I think we are starting to get close to the end of life of Wireless N (we're not quite there yet) -- in the sense that most new laptops and devices sold this year come with systems that work with AC, and N (and even G, in dual rado setups).
Since the newer AC Units are backwards compatible with N on the 2.4 gHz band, it makes sense to me, to upgrade to get the extra processing power of the AC access points since they are both firmly planted in that future looking, yet backwards compatible limbo, if you will.
Check the cost, though. How much money do you lose going to AC now? How much money is "being ready" going to cost? Keep in mind that likely, in about two years, you can buy AC for probably half the price that they are today. And you can upgrade one at a time as appropriate. The flexibility, time value of money, unknown future principle and other things make investing in technology you can't use or justify yet generally pretty bad. Especially stuff like this that has a pretty predictable cost dropping curve.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd get gigabit switches. No reason not too. But in most applications if your phone limits your desktop connection to 100mbps the user will see no difference. It depends on what kind of data/how big the data is that your company is using.
The reason is cost.
How much can you save? $20?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes, most have a few for gig uplink between switches but it likely wouldn't cover all your Servers nor have PoE for your APs.
Yeah these switches would be for endpoints only.
I currently have a Gb switch for the servers, and anticipate replacing that one as well soon. But that one won't require POE.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd get gigabit switches. No reason not too. But in most applications if your phone limits your desktop connection to 100mbps the user will see no difference. It depends on what kind of data/how big the data is that your company is using.
The reason is cost.
True. But are you planning to upgrade to PoE switches for your APs anyway? There isn't that much difference in cost these days. You could get some refurbished managed PoE gigabit switches if you needed too. Have 100mbs uplinks will also be a big limit on APs, Servers and routers and switch uplinks if not done with stacking cables.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but uplinks on these types of switches have been gig or better for the past decade, so I'm really not considering a 100 Mb uplink.
ALL ports have been GigE for a decade or more (at least in my home and above.) GigE uplinks have been standard in entry level gear ($150 and up) for even longer (maybe twelve years.)
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes, most have a few for gig uplink between switches but it likely wouldn't cover all your Servers nor have PoE for your APs.
Yeah these switches would be for endpoints only.
I currently have a Gb switch for the servers, and anticipate replacing that one as well soon. But that one won't require POE.
If you weren't planning on replacing them I don't see a big deal in keeping 100mb for desktops only for the time being, but if you are replacing them I think it's shooting yourself in the foot not to get gigabit switches.
-
What is common today is GigE on all ports today and 10GigE or more on uplinks. Netgear has had more than 10GigE on mid range switches for nearly ten years although 10GigE has strangely become more common even though it is a step backwards in many cases.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
What POE+ high density switches are people using these days?
Needs to support VLANs.
Have you looked at the HP 2920-48G
I did, it didn't look like the 48G had POE+ from the spec sheet on HP.com
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
What POE+ high density switches are people using these days?
Needs to support VLANs.
any concerns with wattage per port or is it just a handful of phones mixed with other non-PoE stuff?
At this time the only considerations are yeahlink phones and APs. I don't think I'll be stressed for power, but I will need to be able to power all ports.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
What POE+ high density switches are people using these days?
Needs to support VLANs.
Have you looked at the HP 2920-48G
I did, it didn't look like the 48G had POE+ from the spec sheet on HP.com
The POE+ Model does I believe it's MSRP is about $1,800 there is a 2620-48G POE+ for about $1,000. Both are L3 Switches
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/networking-switches/product-detail.html?oid=5408921
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005SGMHVQ/ref=psdc_281414_t2_B00BJ42JQY
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd get gigabit switches. No reason not too. But in most applications if your phone limits your desktop connection to 100mbps the user will see no difference. It depends on what kind of data/how big the data is that your company is using.
The reason is cost.
How much can you save? $20?
Frankly I haven't found a 48 port POE+ 1 Gb vs 100 Mb switch yet to compare prices.. but for anything less than 30% I wouldn't care about the price savings.
When I bought my POE switches 8 years ago, the Gb ones were 100% more expensive than the 100 Mb ones, so I bailed on the idea of Gb for endpoints. In 8 years, really hasn't been an issue.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd get gigabit switches. No reason not too. But in most applications if your phone limits your desktop connection to 100mbps the user will see no difference. It depends on what kind of data/how big the data is that your company is using.
The reason is cost.
How much can you save? $20?
Frankly I haven't found a 48 port POE+ 1 Gb vs 100 Mb switch yet to compare prices.. but for anything less than 30% I wouldn't care about the price savings.
When I bought my POE switches 8 years ago, the Gb ones were 100% more expensive than the 100 Mb ones, so I bailed on the idea of Gb for endpoints. In 8 years, really hasn't been an issue.
You'll only find 100mb POE+ switches at 16 ports or so. Anything bigger will be gigabit. No one is buying POE+ with 100mb. It just doesn't make sense. If you want 100mb you'll have to get older non-poe/or POE 802.3af only. not 802.3at
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
What POE+ high density switches are people using these days?
Needs to support VLANs.
Have you looked at the HP 2920-48G
I did, it didn't look like the 48G had POE+ from the spec sheet on HP.com
The POE+ Model does I believe it's MSRP is about $1,800 there is a 2620-48G POE+ for about $1,000. Both are L3 Switches
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/networking-switches/product-detail.html?oid=5408921
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005SGMHVQ/ref=psdc_281414_t2_B00BJ42JQY
Thanks, I found the 2920-48G, but the POE version wasn't coming up for some reason!
Now to read the differences between the 2620 vs the 2920 to see if the $800 price difference is warranted.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology.
I will agree with you on this point, for sure.
You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
That depends on the brand names you are talking about... and at what scale. If you are going to buy 100 Wireless N for a total of $230k, an additional $50,000 is quite a chunk to go from N to AC. However, I think we are starting to get close to the end of life of Wireless N (we're not quite there yet) -- in the sense that most new laptops and devices sold this year come with systems that work with AC, and N (and even G, in dual rado setups).
Since the newer AC Units are backwards compatible with N on the 2.4 gHz band, it makes sense to me, to upgrade to get the extra processing power of the AC access points since they are both firmly planted in that future looking, yet backwards compatible limbo, if you will.
Check the cost, though. How much money do you lose going to AC now? How much money is "being ready" going to cost? Keep in mind that likely, in about two years, you can buy AC for probably half the price that they are today. And you can upgrade one at a time as appropriate. The flexibility, time value of money, unknown future principle and other things make investing in technology you can't use or justify yet generally pretty bad. Especially stuff like this that has a pretty predictable cost dropping curve.
This, this right here is the whole reason for my post. Scott's written this time and time again, and I'm definitely trying to take it to heart (and application). This is why I mentioned that our newest laptops all purchased Summer 2014 don't have AC and everything else older won't be replaced until it fails (I don't expect to replace most for at least 2 more year, but really probably 4).
With that in mind I don't see the value even in my small install base (23 APs @ $50/ea to upgrade to AC = $1150) to purchase AC at this time.
Now Scott's other point that AC will be half the price in 1-2 years that it is now.. I frankly don't see that being the case either considering the current cost of the AP-Pro, at best the AC will probably be $50 less than it is now in 1-2 years so this does not play into my decision much either.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology.
I will agree with you on this point, for sure.
You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
That depends on the brand names you are talking about... and at what scale. If you are going to buy 100 Wireless N for a total of $230k, an additional $50,000 is quite a chunk to go from N to AC. However, I think we are starting to get close to the end of life of Wireless N (we're not quite there yet) -- in the sense that most new laptops and devices sold this year come with systems that work with AC, and N (and even G, in dual rado setups).
Since the newer AC Units are backwards compatible with N on the 2.4 gHz band, it makes sense to me, to upgrade to get the extra processing power of the AC access points since they are both firmly planted in that future looking, yet backwards compatible limbo, if you will.
Check the cost, though. How much money do you lose going to AC now? How much money is "being ready" going to cost? Keep in mind that likely, in about two years, you can buy AC for probably half the price that they are today. And you can upgrade one at a time as appropriate. The flexibility, time value of money, unknown future principle and other things make investing in technology you can't use or justify yet generally pretty bad. Especially stuff like this that has a pretty predictable cost dropping curve.
This, this right here is the whole reason for my post. Scott's written this time and time again, and I'm definitely trying to take it to heart (and application). This is why I mentioned that our newest laptops all purchased Summer 2014 don't have AC and everything else older won't be replaced until it fails (I don't expect to replace most for at least 2 more year, but really probably 4).
With that in mind I don't see the value even in my small install base (23 APs @ $50/ea to upgrade to AC = $1150) to purchase AC at this time.
Now Scott's other point that AC will be half the price in 1-2 years that it is now.. I frankly don't see that being the case either considering the current cost of the AP-Pro, at best the AC will probably be $50 less than it is now in 1-2 years so this does not play into my decision much either.
Invest the money you would have in AC APs in new switches to get you on gigabit. That's what a would recommend. It doesn't sound like you will see any benefit from AC APs.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology.
I will agree with you on this point, for sure.
You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
That depends on the brand names you are talking about... and at what scale. If you are going to buy 100 Wireless N for a total of $230k, an additional $50,000 is quite a chunk to go from N to AC. However, I think we are starting to get close to the end of life of Wireless N (we're not quite there yet) -- in the sense that most new laptops and devices sold this year come with systems that work with AC, and N (and even G, in dual rado setups).
Since the newer AC Units are backwards compatible with N on the 2.4 gHz band, it makes sense to me, to upgrade to get the extra processing power of the AC access points since they are both firmly planted in that future looking, yet backwards compatible limbo, if you will.
Check the cost, though. How much money do you lose going to AC now? How much money is "being ready" going to cost? Keep in mind that likely, in about two years, you can buy AC for probably half the price that they are today. And you can upgrade one at a time as appropriate. The flexibility, time value of money, unknown future principle and other things make investing in technology you can't use or justify yet generally pretty bad. Especially stuff like this that has a pretty predictable cost dropping curve.
This, this right here is the whole reason for my post. Scott's written this time and time again, and I'm definitely trying to take it to heart (and application). This is why I mentioned that our newest laptops all purchased Summer 2014 don't have AC and everything else older won't be replaced until it fails (I don't expect to replace most for at least 2 more year, but really probably 4).
With that in mind I don't see the value even in my small install base (23 APs @ $50/ea to upgrade to AC = $1150) to purchase AC at this time.
Now Scott's other point that AC will be half the price in 1-2 years that it is now.. I frankly don't see that being the case either considering the current cost of the AP-Pro, at best the AC will probably be $50 less than it is now in 1-2 years so this does not play into my decision much either.
Invest the money you would have in AC APs in new switches to get you on gigabit. That's what a would recommend. It doesn't sound like you will see any benefit from AC APs.
You need GigE to leverage N, let along AC.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology.
I will agree with you on this point, for sure.
You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
That depends on the brand names you are talking about... and at what scale. If you are going to buy 100 Wireless N for a total of $230k, an additional $50,000 is quite a chunk to go from N to AC. However, I think we are starting to get close to the end of life of Wireless N (we're not quite there yet) -- in the sense that most new laptops and devices sold this year come with systems that work with AC, and N (and even G, in dual rado setups).
Since the newer AC Units are backwards compatible with N on the 2.4 gHz band, it makes sense to me, to upgrade to get the extra processing power of the AC access points since they are both firmly planted in that future looking, yet backwards compatible limbo, if you will.
Check the cost, though. How much money do you lose going to AC now? How much money is "being ready" going to cost? Keep in mind that likely, in about two years, you can buy AC for probably half the price that they are today. And you can upgrade one at a time as appropriate. The flexibility, time value of money, unknown future principle and other things make investing in technology you can't use or justify yet generally pretty bad. Especially stuff like this that has a pretty predictable cost dropping curve.
This, this right here is the whole reason for my post. Scott's written this time and time again, and I'm definitely trying to take it to heart (and application). This is why I mentioned that our newest laptops all purchased Summer 2014 don't have AC and everything else older won't be replaced until it fails (I don't expect to replace most for at least 2 more year, but really probably 4).
With that in mind I don't see the value even in my small install base (23 APs @ $50/ea to upgrade to AC = $1150) to purchase AC at this time.
Now Scott's other point that AC will be half the price in 1-2 years that it is now.. I frankly don't see that being the case either considering the current cost of the AP-Pro, at best the AC will probably be $50 less than it is now in 1-2 years so this does not play into my decision much either.
Invest the money you would have in AC APs in new switches to get you on gigabit. That's what a would recommend. It doesn't sound like you will see any benefit from AC APs.
You need GigE to leverage N, let along AC.
Damn, you're absolutely right. Not that it matters, it all gets crushed to a 10 Mb connection for the internet, where our users spend 90% of their day anyhow.
-
@Dashrender said:
You need GigE to leverage N, let along AC.
Damn, you're absolutely right. Not that it matters, it all gets crushed to a 10 Mb connection for the internet, where our users spend 90% of their day anyhow.
Well, in theory, you might have something like storage that is not on the Internet. Do you have no internal services at all? No servers of any kind?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
You need GigE to leverage N, let along AC.
Damn, you're absolutely right. Not that it matters, it all gets crushed to a 10 Mb connection for the internet, where our users spend 90% of their day anyhow.
Well, in theory, you might have something like storage that is not on the Internet. Do you have no internal services at all? No servers of any kind?
Yes, we do, email is still in house (yeah don't say it
) and we have windows servers (file/print and application), but 90% of our users don't touch an internal server except for authentication and email.Currently we have Cisco AIR-LAP1131AG APs on a 4401 controller (EOL'ed in 2013) with HP 2910 100Mb switches (core server switch is Gb) with little to no internal network issues.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yes we do, email is still in house (yeah don't say it
) and we have windows servers, but 90% of our users don't touch an internal server except for authentication and email.Well at least those two functions would not be squeezed into your 10Mb/s pipe. Add DNS cacheing, a proxy server, etc. and there are ways to leverage a faster network. Might not be worth it, but you can look for ways.
No internal storage at all? That's got to be painful over 10Mb/s!
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
You need GigE to leverage N, let along AC.
Damn, you're absolutely right. Not that it matters, it all gets crushed to a 10 Mb connection for the internet, where our users spend 90% of their day anyhow.
Well, in theory, you might have something like storage that is not on the Internet. Do you have no internal services at all? No servers of any kind?
Yes we do, email is still in house (yeah don't say it
) and we have windows servers, but 90% of our users don't touch an internal server except for authentication and email.Currently we have Cisco AIR-LAP1131AG APs on a 4401 controller (EOL'ed in 2013) with HP 2910 100Mb switches (core server switch is Gb) with little to no internal network issues.
We use the Aironet 1250's at church and they are fine. We only have four of them and saturate them with 400+ users so they to get a bit of latency sometimes but still work. Ours are autonomous firmware so no controller.
Also take in to count things like broadcast packets and the fast processing of the switches that will help speed up the network.
