Which AP for as many as 50 users

[timmy2]

"50 (wifi) users" are guests with smartphones, tablets, and the occasional laptop. Maybe a few could be watching a youtube video but most would be accessing static pages and email. I'd say 50 is a worst case scenario and even then only half might be "using the Internet" at any given time.

Consider the following choice of Netgear Access Points:

AC1900-Nighthawk Smart WiFi Router set to AP mode @ $200
ProSafe Premium 3 x 3 Dual-Band Wireless-N Access Point WNDAP660 @ $500

The ProSafe's specs say "up to 128 users" but it costs over twice as much as the AC1900. New high-end consumer routers like the AC1900 boast fast dual-core CPUs so I wonder if one like the AC1900 could handle the same traffic.

Insofar as multiple SSIDs all I usually need is a single Guest network isolated from the owner's LAN (no more than 10 users, mostly wired), which consumer routers like the AC1900 usually provide for.

Thoughts, pros, cons? Is it a moot point if the broadband service is 10Mbps max?

 

[stevech]

use 3, each on different channel 1, 6, 11.
Maybe each with different SSID. Maybe each with different encryption key.

Then you give out the key to control how many per AP.

 

[thiggins]

+1 for Stevech's suggestion of multiple APs. The # of users per AP depends a lot on type of traffic and devices.

Mobile devices have lower maximum link rates, so exhaust usable bandwidth pretty quickly with continuous traffic like streaming. If your devices are mostly 1x1 N, you get about 40 Mbps of usable bandwidth, tops in 2.4 GHz.

Make sure you choose an AP that provides bandwidth management so that you can set a per-user bandwidth limit. That way if someone is going to stream, they won't hog all the bandwidth.

Ubiquiti APs can do this. Cisco WAP121,321 and 561 have some good bandwidth mgmt features, but I'm no sure they have per-client bandwidth limiting.

 

[stevech]

Number of APs depends on what you think the user traffic loading patterns will be. Longer term average bandwidth demand is low on average. But just 1 or 2 hogs streaming lots can impact all others.

Also, some consumer routers have a low limit on max associated clients - like 25 or so. This slows throughput as the AP might de-associate a client to admit a new one. No way to know how the AP is designed for such in consumer-land.

 

[azazel1024]

What coverage? 50 users helps, but what is the physical area? Waiting room? Office? Garage? Outdoor space?

If the area is physical large, you would need more than one AP anyway. If the area is relatively small, but not too small, you could still go with more than one AP to balance the load and set the router/AP to lowest radio power to reduce overlap and encourage switching between.

I think since this is mostly guests, who I assume would be moving around, a unified SSID would be crucial. I'd deffinitely go the route of 2 or 3 APs to spread the load. Set them on seperate channels and 20MHz on 2.4GHz and I'd set them on seperate channels and 40MHz on 5GHz (I wouldn't bother with 80MHz on 5GHz as stability is more important than speed here with so many users).

I'd also target a product that allows you to set per user bandwidth limits so no high impact user can swamp everyone else. If you are talking about 10Mbps as the max as the pipe to the internet, I think the user experience is going to be horrible for everyone. Even if there isn't a ton of concurrency on use, the 10 wired connections plus the wireless guest ones are going to make everything crawl. I'd want to budget at least 1Mbps per user wired and wireless and assume less than half would be using at any given point to figure more like 2-4Mbps actual pipe availble per active user.

Streaming video is unlikely to be successful with a 10Mbps pipe spread around like that. I'd suggest setting a very, very low per user bandwidth limit on wireless. Like 1Mbps or something.

 

[stevech]

With a single SSID in WiFi that doesn't use a controller, how do you get the users distributed across multiple APs?

 

[timmy2]

Thank you to all who replied.

 

[azazel1024]

With a single SSID in WiFi that doesn't use a controller, how do you get the users distributed across multiple APs?

Up to the clients. That said, if the area is large, the differential signal strength will push clients towards some of the other APs. If the area is somewhat smaller, then you set the routers to minimum power to do the same thing. You basically rely on client roaming and possibly do some tricks to help level the game (like reducing router Tx power to minimum levels to encourage roaming to other access points so clients are only likely to associate with the nearest router). Neither would work well in something like a waiting room, unless it was a very large waiting room. But it would work well in a moderately large open space or a smaller space with walls.

If it is multiple SSIDs...how do you do the same, other than telling them which SSID to use? Making it up the user to load balance isn't likely to work out too well, unless these are employees, but the OP said guests.

 

[stevech]

Up to the clients. That said, if the area is large, the differential signal strength will push clients towards some of the other APs. If the area is somewhat smaller, then you set the routers to minimum power to do the same thing. You basically rely on client roaming and possibly do some tricks to help level the game (like reducing router Tx power to minimum levels to encourage roaming to other access points so clients are only likely to associate with the nearest router). Neither would work well in something like a waiting room, unless it was a very large waiting room. But it would work well in a moderately large open space or a smaller space with walls.

If it is multiple SSIDs...how do you do the same, other than telling them which SSID to use? Making it up the user to load balance isn't likely to work out too well, unless these are employees, but the OP said guests.

Client devices will choose which AP to use arbitrarily. If users enter a coverage area through a hall/door, they'll all tend to choose first-heard and stay with it, even with a weak signal. That's how most WiFi client do things. This leaves other APs unloved.