This test is bogus. You went on to describe how you had equal distribution of clients on the 4 ARUBA APs but didn't bother to show how clients were connected to the Cisco AP(s). I'm sure the ARUBA system was tweaked and turned for the ideal scenario but we are not sure if you did the same for the Cisco, since you didn't show us any information at all. Not even sure there we're 4 Cisco AP's in the test either, since we didn't see the controller screen very clearly. Lame example here!
so did you Test 4 Aruba 105's (run dual band across channels) against 1 Cisco 1140 AP? with 80 clients on both? Or did I miss understand what was described as the test?
@neilos2085 Gotta agree. We sell and install and support meru here and while I am far from a default-supporter of products we provide, I actually really like the Meru system. Administration is pretty simple and the solution actually works. Many happy customers and not a single problem with channel interference and density requirements. I loaded up one AP with 45 clients for fun and it just kept on going.
Heckyl, the system doesn't 'crash' in presence of interference. Interference is a broad term that can apply to ALOT of different things (microwaves, 2.4GHz phones, video monitors, light ballasts, etc). And it doesn't make ARM useless, in fact ARM can work around that interference if you have an interference source that monopolizes a section of the spectrum. Of course, I can introduce any level of interference and then it won't matter WHO the WLAN vendor is. Spectrum capacity is spectrum capacity
add any amount of interference and watch it all crash, aruba uses wifi chips incapable of proper spectrum measurements -- making aruba arm useless. making aruba useless in any open environment.
Aruba absolutely owns Cisco. Tests like these and the fact that Cisco has resorted to "fear selling" instead of showing customers why they believe their product is better shows they simply can't compete with Aruba.
Steps were taken to ensure that both vendors had a fair shot at passing the test. Both vendors' APs and clients were placed in exactly the same positions, and the latest code was used with all the RF management and optimization features enabled. Please see the Network Test report for more details.
Oh, and kudos for doing your test in a large, open space, where the APs will definitely hear each other. Your APs clearly know how to work around one another. Also I'm impressed by the fact that the laptops are out of sight from the APs, down inside the cubicles. It's much tougher to do what you did when there are obstacles and bounce in the way.
It's nice to see that Aruba allows comments on their videos, while Cisco prevents comments.
Your test was impressively done over all, but with a couple points of critique: you didn't show how Cisco load-balanced the users, which would have been good to see before the test. I also would like to know the varieties and number of each chip set in your test... also, I'm assuming the Cisco APs were deployed in the same locations as the Aruba APs during their respective tests...?
This test is bogus. You went on to describe how you had equal distribution of clients on the 4 ARUBA APs but didn't bother to show how clients were connected to the Cisco AP(s). I'm sure the ARUBA system was tweaked and turned for the ideal scenario but we are not sure if you did the same for the Cisco, since you didn't show us any information at all. Not even sure there we're 4 Cisco AP's in the test either, since we didn't see the controller screen very clearly. Lame example here!
sharkeeeee 1 week ago
so did you Test 4 Aruba 105's (run dual band across channels) against 1 Cisco 1140 AP? with 80 clients on both? Or did I miss understand what was described as the test?
trademac1974 4 months ago
good product but it said more than 80 but total was 80
nhirsch 11 months ago
Still... You have nothing on Meru Networks.......
neilos2085 1 year ago
@neilos2085 Gotta agree. We sell and install and support meru here and while I am far from a default-supporter of products we provide, I actually really like the Meru system. Administration is pretty simple and the solution actually works. Many happy customers and not a single problem with channel interference and density requirements. I loaded up one AP with 45 clients for fun and it just kept on going.
jamiebridges123 1 month ago
Heckyl, the system doesn't 'crash' in presence of interference. Interference is a broad term that can apply to ALOT of different things (microwaves, 2.4GHz phones, video monitors, light ballasts, etc). And it doesn't make ARM useless, in fact ARM can work around that interference if you have an interference source that monopolizes a section of the spectrum. Of course, I can introduce any level of interference and then it won't matter WHO the WLAN vendor is. Spectrum capacity is spectrum capacity
sippervixx 1 year ago
add any amount of interference and watch it all crash, aruba uses wifi chips incapable of proper spectrum measurements -- making aruba arm useless. making aruba useless in any open environment.
heckyl69 1 year ago
Aruba absolutely owns Cisco. Tests like these and the fact that Cisco has resorted to "fear selling" instead of showing customers why they believe their product is better shows they simply can't compete with Aruba.
ledhed70 1 year ago
The report is the first search item returned when you Google "network test own the air".
ArubaQandA 1 year ago
Steps were taken to ensure that both vendors had a fair shot at passing the test. Both vendors' APs and clients were placed in exactly the same positions, and the latest code was used with all the RF management and optimization features enabled. Please see the Network Test report for more details.
ArubaQandA 1 year ago
Oh, and kudos for doing your test in a large, open space, where the APs will definitely hear each other. Your APs clearly know how to work around one another. Also I'm impressed by the fact that the laptops are out of sight from the APs, down inside the cubicles. It's much tougher to do what you did when there are obstacles and bounce in the way.
IHateFUD 1 year ago
It's nice to see that Aruba allows comments on their videos, while Cisco prevents comments.
Your test was impressively done over all, but with a couple points of critique: you didn't show how Cisco load-balanced the users, which would have been good to see before the test. I also would like to know the varieties and number of each chip set in your test... also, I'm assuming the Cisco APs were deployed in the same locations as the Aruba APs during their respective tests...?
IHateFUD 1 year ago