1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice

Welcome To SNBForums

SNBForums is a community for anyone who wants to learn about or discuss the latest in wireless routers, network storage and the ins and outs of building and maintaining a small network.

If you'd like to post a question, simply register and have at it!

While you're at it, please check out SmallNetBuilder for product reviews and our famous Router Charts, Ranker and plenty more!

Why You Don't Need MU-MIMO

Discussion in 'Wireless Article Discussions' started by thiggins, Oct 18, 2017.

  1. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    [​IMG]
    Delays, missteps and over-aggressive marketing have made this once promising technology something you can live without.

    Read on SmallNetBuilder
     
    Spartan, WiFiNemesis, Zolpho and 6 others like this.
  2. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I would tend to agree - there are use cases where MU is of benefit...

    It's been a marketing problem for most in the retail space - doesn't help that Wave 1 was very successful - and Wave 2 is an incremental update to 802.11ac in the market.
     
  3. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    If you call selling futures on features that never show up and when they do don't work well, then ok, it's a "marketing" problem.
     
    Makaveli, avtella and Hydro like this.
  4. iwod

    iwod Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Well You really cant blame Apple for not supporting something when the feature is not properly implemented.

    But this got me extremely worried with 802.11ax.

    Are we going to repeat this again, basically constantly shipping updated Hardware Chips to the market.
     
  5. RMerlin

    RMerlin Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    31,296
    Location:
    Canada
    While playing Buzzword Bingo, here's a new one I came accross recently, as part of Broadcom's new HND platform:

    Adaptive Bandwidth Control

    No idea what it does...
     
    David B likes this.
  6. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    I think the suits between Apple and Qualcomm also are at play...

    I wouldn't say the hardware updates have been "constant" for 11ac.

    But yes, 11ax will take a few rounds to get right. The market has consistently shown it is willing to be a guinea pig for beta grade Wi-Fi.
     
    beboptrumpet likes this.
  7. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    11ac has as part of the standard the ability to change channel bandwidth on a frame-by-frame basis. 11ax has the same.
     
  8. Sarre9

    Sarre9 New Around Here

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Excellent article again! Thank you for unravelling the MU-MiMo mess the marketing geniuses foisted on us.
     
  9. Trentors

    Trentors Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    103
    Great article Tim!

    Anyways I have claimed it before and will still do so. In order to increase capacity on a single AP/Router the triband solutions are the only valid option.

    Even an old device as RT-AC3200 is better suited to handle multiple devices than 4x4 MU-MIMO routers. So even though many find triband routers overkill they do actually work unlike devices relying on MU-MIMO to increase capacity. And now Tim has proved this.
     
  10. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    All I have shown is that MU-MIMO doesn't deliver the promised improvements,

    "Smart Connect" is another can 'o worms. Yes, the additional radio helps increase total bandwidth, IF devices are properly assigned among the three radios. But that rarely happens automatically. Clients can often resist being band steered. When I have tested Smart Connect in past reviews, I've found it to be pretty stupid...
     
  11. Trentors

    Trentors Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    103
    I also completely agree. Smart Connect is not worth it IMO. But the fact that you still have an extra 5GHz network does increase capacity if you manually assign the proper devices to use. I basically split the two 5GHz networks between low performance devices on the first and a few high performance devices on the second. That way I can keep 1x1 devices from unnecessarily slowing down the 3x3/2x2 devices. And it works regardless of clients unlike MU-MIMO.
     
    Makaveli likes this.
  12. Makaveli

    Makaveli Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    500
    Location:
    Canada
    That's an easy one merlin it uses a custom boardcom AI chip to intelligently provide bandwidth to applications that needs it the most.

    And yes that it totally made up like most of the stuff coming from marketing departments these days.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
  13. WiFiNemesis

    WiFiNemesis Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Messages:
    51
    Yes.

    The IEEE ax Task Group did not approve Draft 1.0 of the standard as expected this year.
    The final specification isn't expected until 2019, if all goes as planned.
    Similations have indicated performance expectations are unlikely to be achieved (the solution: change the simulation assumptions).

    That hasn't stopped the usual suspects from announcing products already. It will be a long, rough road, as Tim suggests.
     
    Makaveli likes this.
  14. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Informed insight - has nothing to do with the Apple/Qualcomm stuff (which really doesn't have a place here - there are better forums for that discussion)

    Much more has to do with benefit vs. risk to the end-user experience. Apple basically doesn't see a need for MU - and while Broadcom has scored a significant amount of design wins - Apple is not strongly bound to any WiFi chipset vendor.
     
  15. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Yep - it's not observed in the wild often, but it's out there - mostly in enterprise/carrier grade AP's, and usually under heavy use - I've got a few PCAP's where it's been caught.
     
  16. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Shareholders benefit from increased sales of WiFi NIC's that support "Smart Connect" - to the end user, it can introduce a level of complexity that offers little benefit.

    OEM's like it as it can run up the MAX BANDWIDTH (with enhanced POW!) marketing numbers :D :D :D
     
  17. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    It's a hard story to tell, and a hard story to sell - there is benefit, but it's not a single client benefit - and MU does work in certain use cases, esp. under heavy usage where client stations are relatively fixed.

    Part of the problem with MU in 802.11ac - it's a nominal implementation - mostly for interop purposes.

    One sees MU more common in LTE space, and there, the value can be more obvious when one has 200 users per cell (sector in old-school CDMA speak) - so if a Cell Tower has 600 mobiles attached - which is relatively common in 3G/4G networks, MU can add additional capacity - similar to VAMOS I/II that was used for GSM (phase rotation in same slot at a very high level) and Pseudo-Ramdom codes for CDMA, extending the Walsh codes from 64 to 128 - theory was 2x, but one does have to account for orthogonal issues there.
     
  18. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    I wasn't aware of that. And, of course, none of the companies announcing products have shared that information.
    But it's right there in the January 2017 meeting report.
    Looks like they've moved on to work on Draft 2.0.
     
  19. WiFiNemesis

    WiFiNemesis Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Messages:
    51
    It gets better. Apparently some 18 companies in a prticipating SIG ("DensiFi") got caught colluding, which set things back a bit. Fun reading if you have nothing better to do. I see that the Wikipedia entry for 802.11ax has had the incident edited out.
     
  20. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,959
    Thanks for that, WiFiNemesis. The investigation report has the details behind the allegations and investigation.

    Basically, a small group of powerful companies had pre-meetings to discuss upcoming topics in the Working Group meetings to coordinate votes. The problem was that all interested parties were not allowed to join the group ("DensiFi"), so their ideas were not heard.

    The technical issue at the core of this appears to be related to an interoperability mechanism that will have significant effect on the ratio of airtime legacy and AX devices get.

    This stuff gets pushed to market too quickly, but consumers keep buying. So there are no negative consequences for the companies involved.