Advice to connect 25 wireless devices simultaneously?

[etrips]

Greetings SNB!

I am trying to figure out what is the best way to connect 25 wireless devices that are streaming simultaneously, with each device using up 0.032 MBps or 114.03 MB / hour. I currently have a 50/10 plan with Comcast, using a Surfboard SB6141 modem and a ASUS RT-N10P router. As of right now I know that my wireless router is my weakest link. However given that all 25 devices can only use the 2.4ghz frequency (802.11n), I do not think just upgrading my router will solve the problem.

I tried to use the ASUS RT-N66 and TP-Link WDR3500 but for some reason the dinky little router that I'm using has been more stable. My experience in networking is pretty much non-existent outside of hooking up some cat5 cables to the router/modem, but I am willing to learn!

What would my best option be in order to get the best stability / throughput on all these devices?

 

[abailey]

lol, we use the same forums. Hopefully someone else here will give their opinion so we can see what might work for you.

 

[stevech]

Greetings SNB!

I am trying to figure out what is the best way to connect 25 wireless devices that are streaming simultaneously, with each device using up 0.032 MBps or 114.03 MB / hour. I currently have a 50/10 plan with Comcast, using a Surfboard SB6141 modem and a ASUS RT-N10P router. As of right now I know that my wireless router is my weakest link. However given that all 25 devices can only use the 2.4ghz frequency (802.11n), I do not think just upgrading my router will solve the problem.

I tried to use the ASUS RT-N66 and TP-Link WDR3500 but for some reason the dinky little router that I'm using has been more stable. My experience in networking is pretty much non-existent outside of hooking up some cat5 cables to the router/modem, but I am willing to learn!

What would my best option be in order to get the best stability / throughput on all these devices?

.03Mbps per client x 25 is less than 1Mbps in aggregate. Are you sure of those numbers? Streaming at .03Mbps would be something like bursty stock quotes or some such text.

25 simultaneously active clients.. Hard to say, but many consumer WiFi routers or APs won't do that. But the good ones will. I'd get 2+ WiFi access points on different channels (1,6,11) for this requirement. Then you can use a cheap consumer router with WiFi disabled or on a private SSID.

After you figure out what the real data load is.

 

[etrips]

.03Mbps per client x 25 is less than 1Mbps in aggregate. Are you sure of those numbers? Streaming at .03Mbps would be something like bursty stock quotes or some such text.

25 simultaneously active clients.. Hard to say, but many consumer WiFi routers or APs won't do that. But the good ones will. I'd get 2+ WiFi access points on different channels (1,6,11) for this requirement. Then you can use a cheap consumer router with WiFi disabled or on a private SSID.

After you figure out what the real data load is.

My apologies it should be around 3.34mbps / 200mb an hour / 4.5-4.8gb a day. Do you have any recommendations on access points? I'm assuming they should all have different SSIDs?

edit: The range shouldn't have to be that powerful. The devices are usually located no more than 15ft from the router.

 

[stevech]

My apologies it should be around 3.34mbps / 200mb an hour / 4.5-4.8gb a day. Do you have any recommendations on access points? I'm assuming they should all have different SSIDs?

edit: The range shouldn't have to be that powerful. The devices are usually located no more than 15ft from the router.

B=bytes
b=bits
please get this clarified.
100mbits per hour? Do you really mean 200MB/hr? Let's assume that.
15 ft. from router. Can't just plug in to a switch with cat5?

I'd go with an ASUS RT-N12 times 2. Plus any old router whose WiFi you wouldn't use.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320168

I use this and find it totally reliable in AP mode.
Put the RT-N12's in access point (AP) mode (setup). Connect each to the router with say 25 or 50 ft. of cat5. Place them if you can high and clear, above the clutter.
Put one on channel 1 and the other on channel 16. It's key to spread load on two frequencies widely separated.
Give each a static LAN IP address like 192.168.1.2 and 1.3. Let the router handle all DHCP and set it to not overlap with 1.2 and 1.3. Assuming your router is 192.168.1.1. Or some such.

Disable the WiFi in the router. Or put it on channel 6 with a different SSID and different encryption key than the APs will use.

You can use the same SSID on both APs. BUT, YOU have to somehow ask people to connect half to one AP and half to the other. So you need to use two SSIDs so people can know which AP they're using. No way around that. If 90% use the same AP, you may have issues.
A control you have is tell half the people the encryption key you put in AP#1 and the other half the key in AP#2. And ask them to not reveal. You would have set different keys in each AP.

Not hard. Takes some planning. And cajoling people to not gang up on one AP.

 

[etrips]

B=bytes
b=bits
please get this clarified.
100mbits per hour? Do you really mean 200MB/hr? Let's assume that.
15 ft. from router. Can't just plug in to a switch with cat5?

Ahh thank you for the clarification, I did not realize there was a difference when using capitalization. Unfortunately no, I am unable to hard wire them since they are cheap wireless phones that are in a central location. I am using them for a research project.

I'd go with an ASUS RT-N12 times 2. Plus any old router whose WiFi you wouldn't use.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320168

I use this and find it totally reliable in AP mode.
Put the RT-N12's in access point (AP) mode (setup). Connect each to the router with say 25 or 50 ft. of cat5. Place them if you can high and clear, above the clutter.

Thanks, I will return this TP-Link that I ordered (the user interface is really terrible) and order two of those. Do the APs need to physically be separated that distance from each other / the router? The wireless devices are in a central location and are generally not moved at all.

Put one on channel 1 and the other on channel 16. It's key to spread load on two frequencies widely separated.
Give each a static LAN IP address like 192.168.1.2 and 1.3. Let the router handle all DHCP and set it to not overlap with 1.2 and 1.3. Assuming your router is 192.168.1.1. Or some such.

Interesting, so I will only be using the APs to connect wirelessly?

You can use the same SSID on both APs. BUT, YOU have to somehow ask people to connect half to one AP and half to the other. So you need to use two SSIDs so people can know which AP they're using. No way around that. If 90% use the same AP, you may have issues.
A control you have is tell half the people the encryption key you put in AP#1 and the other half the key in AP#2. And ask them to not reveal. You would have set different keys in each AP.

Got it, when I had tried to use the same SSID on an AP I didn't see a way for the devices to differentiate between the router or AP. So I will just go ahead and use separate SSIDs.

Thank you very much for your information and knowledge. I have definitely learned quite a bit today.

 

[azazel1024]

The clients will differentiate based on signal strength if you use the same SSID on both APs, so you'd want to spatially diversify them. Since they are fixed wireless clients, you are probably better off with 2-3 routers in AP mode or dedicated APs set on seperate channels, 20MHz channel width, set one on 1, one on 6 and one on 11 and then seperate SSIDs test1, test2, test3 or whatever. Then connect devices 1-12 to test1 and 13-25 to test2, or if using 3, divy them up a third, a third a third.

 

[stevech]

The clients will differentiate based on signal strength if you use the same SSID on both APs, so you'd want to spatially diversify them.

In general, I can't agree. Very few clients choose best-AP based on signal strength. Most use first-heard that's greater than X in signal strength (RSSI) as they scan channels. Some vendors do better at this than others.

 

[Samir]

The clients will differentiate based on signal strength if you use the same SSID on both APs, so you'd want to spatially diversify them. Since they are fixed wireless clients, you are probably better off with 2-3 routers in AP mode or dedicated APs set on seperate channels, 20MHz channel width, set one on 1, one on 6 and one on 11 and then seperate SSIDs test1, test2, test3 or whatever. Then connect devices 1-12 to test1 and 13-25 to test2, or if using 3, divy them up a third, a third a third.

This is the approach I would take. The other thing you could do is step up to a business class router that is designed for 100+ clients. One of these can do the job pretty easily. I've had good results with the Netgear FVS318N, but like all routers and brands, check out reviews for each one for yourself and see if it does what you need. Cheaper business-class units are still quite buggy.

 

[fistv]

This is the approach I would take. The other thing you could do is step up to a business class router that is designed for 100+ clients. One of these can do the job pretty easily. I've had good results with the Netgear FVS318N, but like all routers and brands, check out reviews for each one for yourself and see if it does what you need. Cheaper business-class units are still quite buggy.

I agree, if you put a real router on there like a Cisco 891W, that will handle the entire group with one box. I just found some used ones on server supply in the $500 range though I would want their part number before buying one so I could see what one it was. While not plug and play the basic config for the wireless access point is straight forward. The 891w is actually two separate devices, the router and the AP. Note: Cisco Configuration Professional does not play well with the 8 and 900 series routers. There are enough 'canned' configs on the cisco support forums that you can pretty much cut and paste a running config just changing IP's to suit your needs.
The one you want is a CISCO891W-AGN-A-K9

 

[Samir]

I agree, if you put a real router on there like a Cisco 891W, that will handle the entire group with one box. I just found some used ones on server supply in the $500 range though I would want their part number before buying one so I could see what one it was. While not plug and play the basic config for the wireless access point is straight forward. The 891w is actually two separate devices, the router and the AP. Note: Cisco Configuration Professional does not play well with the 8 and 900 series routers. There are enough 'canned' configs on the cisco support forums that you can pretty much cut and paste a running config just changing IP's to suit your needs.
The one you want is a CISCO891W-AGN-A-K9

I wouldn't go this far especially considering the cost for what seems like a budget project. And add that to the complexity of setting up any real Cisco gear, and it's a big overkill. I would recommend the Cisco small business rv-series for this task, but I've read too many issues with them. The netgear, I'm using and it seems quite solid, hence my recommendation.

 

[abailey]

Greetings SNB!

I am trying to figure out what is the best way to connect 25 wireless devices that are streaming simultaneously,

Because of the statement above I would strongly discourage the use of a single AP no matter if it is pro or not. Pro AP's definitely do a better job at serving higher number of clients but by the nature of Wifi can still only talk to one client at a time (on one channel). Thus if you have many clients streaming data instead of casual Wifi users, this could be a disaster for a single AP. You are asking for a lot of buffering and possibly drops if you only use 1 AP.

 

[etrips]

I just received my two ASUS routers that I finished setting up as APs. So far things are looking really promising.

And abailey, I believe the reason why it didn't work when you suggested it on the other forum was because I never set the LAN IP of the AP to something different. Which I feel really dumb about now.

Edit:
Is there any reason why I shouldn't use the main router's wifi?