R710 coverage and features

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • (Edited)
Hi We are currently using ZD1200 with 5 R700 AP and planning on adding two more AP but there is no enough channel on 5GHz 80 MHz so we move to 5GHz 40MHz but we are not so impress with the performance. And i heard that R710 has better coverage compare to R700. Can someone confirm that for me please... also if its true how does it enable better coverage on 5GHz ... i mean both R710 and R700 when deploy on 5GHz 80MHz they are both seems running on the same frequency to me ... please need clarification.....
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
I have an R600, R700, and R710, and I can confirm that the R710 has noticeably superior coverage. It seems to be able to deliver similar speeds as the R700 through one additional wall. The major differences for the R710 over the R700 are that it:

 - has more BeamFlex elements for forming more antenna patterns
 - Has 4 radio chains (4x4:4) which presumably improves antenna diversity
 - Supports 802.11ac chip-based beamforming (e.g. 4x4:4 can make a 2x2:2 beamformed signal) in addition to BeamFlex
 - Has a much better RX sensitivity than the R700/R600, which permits it to hear clients from further away.

But to be honest, the R600 is still a star for cost:performance ratio. And if you ask me, would you have 1xR710 or 2xR600 for a given deployment, I would lean towards the latter, unless you are truly out of channels due to high-density deployment and improving the AP is the only way to improve performance.


Can you elaborate what your performance concerns are for your R700 APs? What kind of clients are you serving, what performance are you seeing, and what kind of performance are you expecting?

It is peculiar that with 5 AP's, you are simultaneously concerned about 5GHz coverage *and* number of channels.
Photo of Sean

Sean

  • 346 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
The r710 also has upwards of 4000 antenna array patterns to that of the r700 which has upwards of 3000.

Note: The only coverage benefit is on the uplink as the downlink is maintained by EIRP.

Apart form the what John has already said the only additional benefit would be performance within the coverage area due to the r710 having more antenna, more spatial streams, and higher bitrate capability.
(Edited)
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you John and Sean ... i'm focussing more on Airtime (so need good signal strenth+enough bandwidth+non-co channel) and we have androip phones, apple iphone, android tablet, ipad, ipod, Mac book air and pro, xbox, windows laptops, kindle .... apple tv ... voip soft phone like 8x8, skype , google hangout ....
and concurrent user is around 202 - 210. Since we moved to 5GHz on 40MHz the airtime increases and it concern me .... oh and we have 45mpbs+30mbps = 75mbps WAN line which are club together.
And a supermicro poe+ 1Gigs 54 ports switch. And the way i understand it .... R710 could be the better option... and average bandwith usasge is around 25+15mbps ...
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Many of the clients you mentioned here are 2x2:2 and 1x1:1, which would source little benefit from the move from a 3x3:3 to a 4x4:4 AP. Definitely the R710 could be a slightly better option, but I would at the same time temper the expectations for dramatic improvement.

Definitely with a 200+ concurrent user scenario on 40MHz channels, you've got a high density high bandwidth requirement setup. Adding more AP's is probably the better way to go for now. When Ruckus adds Airtime Fairness to 802.11ac, that might help.
Photo of Sean

Sean

  • 346 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
You say the following:
oh and we have 45mpbs+30mbps = 75mbps WAN line which are club together
Are these WAN links load balanced?

If you were to do the math on your WAN, and look at your backhaul in relationship to you concurrent user volume. If all your clients were on at once they would share the WAN and be able to pass 357Kbps each - this is not a lot.

Network design always starts at application demand and the number of clients which demand the use of that application and the value associated to that application.

Example:

Lets say your application is 4Mbps

Your client count is 210 with a client radio split of 65% - meaning your busiest frequency would have 137 clients on it.

Lets also say your Max TCP throughput of the AP radio (802.11ac using a 40MHz Channel and a single spatial stream) is 70Mbps on the DL.

Your cell edge deisgn is -61dBm (based on IEEE values for 64QAM bitrate)

The airtime required for a 4Mbps constant stream would be as follows:

1x1 Client = 5.93% @ Top Bitrate

If you then look at your client limit of 137 the total airtime to pass the demand for the application at once would be 811.85%.

Your happy airtime is 75%.

This would mean that you need 11 AP's to deliver the application to client numbers.

You would also need a backhaul of 840Mbps.

As you can RF is one thing, but you have to base your RF on what your network demand is first.
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Sean both the WAN line are active at the same 1:1 and based on rrd graph concurrent usage on 45 Mbps line is around 15Mpbs and on the 30Mbps line it is around 10Mbps .... for the past 6 months (enabling proxy really helps).
And previously while we are on 5GHz 80 MHz .... downloading apple update of size 2Gigs take around 2 minutes... but i haven't test it since we enable 5GHz 40MHz ... so regarding the WAN pipe i believe it is ok for now ....
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
and average bandwith usasge is around 25+15mbps ... concurrently
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
and i feel i can do with 2 R710 and remove 4 R700.... please let me know ..thank you
Photo of Sean

Sean

  • 346 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
What is the areas in which you are deploying these AP's as the airtime impact you are mentioning points to this being an open space... am I correct?
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
800square feet office building... and the APs are kinda close to each other less then 30 feet....
Photo of Karl Lavender

Karl Lavender

  • 10 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Like John said, it's probably a better solution to break users up by adding APs.  200+ users is high, regardless of what they are doing, changing an AP model will be marginally noticeable on a day-to-day average vs providing additional channels.  Halving your available channels (from 4AP to 2AP, if I read your post correctly) would still be offering less spatial streams in a MU-MIMO environment, going from 12 available streams to 8, the 4 APs offering 3x3x3 might still be better in that area as most client devices are single or double stream at best anyways.
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes Karl that was the way i wanna do it but since we our floor is only 800square feet and there is no enough channel ... so we move from 5GHz 80MHz to 5GHz 40MHz ... and on 40MHz deploying 5 AP seems ok but airtime increases and below are our devices detials:

Macbook pro and air and iphone ,windows and android 802.11ac capable 65%
Android devices 5GHz 802.11n capable 25%
and the rest are on 2.4GHz

And when looking at the features on R710 it has MU-MIMO, 8 times better signal coverage than R700, can handle over 500 users while R700 max 100 ... and i'm thinking may be airtime will get reduced alot with R710.... advice please ..... and yes based on the number of APs 6R700 will be better then 2R710 interms of available stream but our floor is not that big for that much number of APs...
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Unless you have MU-MIMO capable clients, MU-MIMO won't do you any good. Furthermore, I think you might be misquoting the "8x better signal coverage" spec -- that is likely compared to a competitor AP, not to an R700. Almost none of your clients mentioned are 802.11ac Wave 2 MU-MIMO capable (except maybe some Android phones -- the Nexus 6P/5X come to mind).

A R710 might be able to deliver marginally better data rates than an R700 to your clients, but it is not going to be a dramatic capacity/throughput improvement unless you have MU-MIMO capable clients, 4x4:4 clients, etc. More AP's is the way to go, though it's still not clear to me what in particular is wrong with "airtime" (utilization?)

How many clients do you have per AP, what is the average throughput, and what do the airtime utilization stats look like on 5GHz?
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Again, I don't want to discourage you from getting R710's. I love my R710 and it's no doubt measurably superior to the R700 and R600 I have. However, I think your expectations of the difference between R710 vs R700 might be too high, and you are likely to find that the R710 does not magically solve your problems.

Most of the ways that R710 improves performance and capacity by a huge amount is via MU-MIMO. To a lesser extent, its additional antenna elements and chip-based TxBF can deliver a stronger signal to a client at a further distance, and its superior receive sensitivity can deal with weak transmitting clients from a further distance.

But if you are running into capacity issues with your deployment in your small area, it sounds like your solutions are more going to involve Channelfly, bss-minrate, possibly allowing AP's to reduce power automatically so that you can pack more AP's into your environment, switching to 20MHz channels to add more non-interfering AP's, etc. Those techniques are more likely to make a significant performance improvement.

When dealing with non wave 2 clients, the R700, R710, and R600 are all essentially using the same underlying wifi technology. One is not going to be a gigantic (e.g. 2x 3x 4x) performance improvement over the other.  That's rarely even the case when comparing 2x2:2 with 3x3:3 AP's (e.g. R500 vs R700).
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi John thank you ....
in two of our APs mostly 50+50 max clients and the rest will be distributed on the rest of the APs and we have 5 AP and yesterday got a demo R600 AP from our vendor...
When we are on 5GHz 80MHz total airtime utilization is good i mean it was never above 5 for the ap with the most clients
But on 5GHz 40MHz i can see two of the APs which has the most number of clients will have a total airtime utilization of above 10 and sometimes 12

and thank you clarification on the MU-MIMO now i know it will work only for MU-MIMO capable devices....
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Sure thing! 5%, 10% or even 12% airtime utilization is not that bad. Any particular reason why you'd like to keep it to 5? It sounds like you have plenty of capacity left on your network. Is something not meeting a performance goal you have from the clients' perspective?
Photo of Sean

Sean

  • 346 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
You should not be worried about airtime utilisation until it is above 75%
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
(i was thinking MU-MIMO will works just like that for all devices)
Average through put between AP and ZD is 700M - 912M up n download depending on the number of clients on the AP and distance between the AP and ZD
And clients througput varies but a would say 400mbps for ac capable devices and 300mbps for n capable devices.
(Edited)
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
That's pretty good and about the capabilities of the technology.
Photo of Sean

Sean

  • 346 Posts
  • 88 Reply Likes
Your WAN is only 75Mbps so this will not affect internet traffic.

What is your Extranet demands?
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Not really John but i was kinda worried when i see the sudden increase in total airtime utilization on the 5GHz when we move to 40MHz .... and wanna make sure before users start complaining ... oh and R710 being the new AP though of may be add 2 of it and reduce the number of AP ... and though R710 may help us to reduce the airtime.... and at the same time reduce the number of APs..
And thank you for the clarification ..... oh and we enable background scanning, smartroam , band sterring and 802.1k ..etc
Photo of John D

John D, AlphaDog

  • 497 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Sounds like you are doing everything correctly. It is totally normal to get an increase in airtime utilization on 5GHz when cutting the channel width in half to 40MHz. Now, 802.11ac clients may take up to twice as long to transmit the same data on a 40MHz channel as on an 80MHz channel.

Of course, you are doing this for a good reason -- you want to deploy more APs to increase capacity. 40MHz is a great setting for that.

I would definitely not recommend reducing the number of AP's. In the future, you might need/want more AP's if your number of clients or bandwidth requirements grow. Or maybe one day you'll find that a good percentage of your clients support Wave 2 and hence your whole network will benefit from MU-MIMO. That might be a good reason to introduce R710's in your denser areas.

Until then, I think you are well provisioned. I wish I could have your kind of utilization! Due to periodic machine backups on my network, my 5GHz utilization peaks at around 30-50%. But even during that kind of heavy usage, my clients still perform great, and there's no noticeable loss in performance.

It's great that you over provision your network and have invested in the best wifi solution on the market. I'm sure your users appreciate it, even if they don't know how much worse their wifi could be!
(Edited)
Photo of chennai itsupport

chennai itsupport

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you John and everyone much appreciated.