<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: 30x APs ZD / vSZ vs Standalone Performance comp in Wireless Questions and Best Practices</title>
    <link>https://community.ruckuswireless.com/t5/Wireless-Questions-and-Best/30x-APs-ZD-vSZ-vs-Standalone-Performance-comp/m-p/31286#M1409</link>
    <description>Hi Stephen,&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; You appear to be fairly knowledgeable, and have the controller benefits correct.&amp;nbsp; If your clients are mostly stationary, they will not need to roam, and would only experience a briefer blip as they re-authenticate if they did.&amp;nbsp; You still need local DHCP and a def-gw defined on each of your APs, and a matching SSID.&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Do you have a channel map plan in mind, to help reduce the co-channel interference?&amp;nbsp; That self-healing and controller managed channel changing, ie ChannelFly might improve overall &lt;BR /&gt;throughput for the individual clients.&amp;nbsp; Otherwise, I'd say to be sure you try to limit the amount of broadcast/multicast, for best results.&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; But if you have mostly stationary clients, and plan your channels appropriately, you can run with all APs on Solo/Standalone code.</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:26:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>michael_brado</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-10-23T22:26:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>30x APs ZD / vSZ vs Standalone Performance comp</title>
      <link>https://community.ruckuswireless.com/t5/Wireless-Questions-and-Best/30x-APs-ZD-vSZ-vs-Standalone-Performance-comp/m-p/31285#M1408</link>
      <description>&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;we have just about every ruckus product and AP, and of course love them. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;We use/manage various Zone Directors as well as vSZ controllers; additionally we have some locations w entirely standalone APs (we don't mix per location). &amp;nbsp;We provide wifi internet to various MDUs as long as &amp;gt; 60 units)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;U alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;I want to be clear, I’m solely asking about wifi performance/end-user client WiFi experience in this question&lt;/U&gt;. &lt;B alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;I alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;(please do *not* factor in AP management&amp;nbsp; , nor interface, nor statistics gathering ability , nor cost)&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;For an apartment building with let’s say 35x ruckus access points (and for discussion, let’s say all r510 APs). Assume a flat network (just a single ssid, w wpa psk, for clients to access the internet), ie *no* need for special features like bonjour fencing nor .11x auth/zero-it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;B alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;BR alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;B alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;Question:&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;B alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;Is there any wireless performance benefit to running these 35x APs on a controller (zd/vSZ) vs standalone mode/fw?&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;&lt;BR alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;Some Controller-only (performance) advantages I’m aware of (please correct if wrong);&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;1- better client roaming via controller (ie if using .11k / .11r only available w controller).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;2- coordinated AP channel changes/selection.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value=""&gt;(for those curious, we do have some pretty large installations with Standalone ruk APs (ie 30-80x ruk APs) where we have been very happy being able to configure/update/modify the ap's via tools like RuckConf and ssh scripting. Additionally we are able to gather details data via each AP sysloging to spunk offsite. &amp;nbsp;We also gather detailed SNMP data from each AP.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BR alt="" name="" rel="" target="" title="" type="" value="" /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:43:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.ruckuswireless.com/t5/Wireless-Questions-and-Best/30x-APs-ZD-vSZ-vs-Standalone-Performance-comp/m-p/31285#M1408</guid>
      <dc:creator>stephen_hall_60</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-23T21:43:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 30x APs ZD / vSZ vs Standalone Performance comp</title>
      <link>https://community.ruckuswireless.com/t5/Wireless-Questions-and-Best/30x-APs-ZD-vSZ-vs-Standalone-Performance-comp/m-p/31286#M1409</link>
      <description>Hi Stephen,&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; You appear to be fairly knowledgeable, and have the controller benefits correct.&amp;nbsp; If your clients are mostly stationary, they will not need to roam, and would only experience a briefer blip as they re-authenticate if they did.&amp;nbsp; You still need local DHCP and a def-gw defined on each of your APs, and a matching SSID.&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Do you have a channel map plan in mind, to help reduce the co-channel interference?&amp;nbsp; That self-healing and controller managed channel changing, ie ChannelFly might improve overall &lt;BR /&gt;throughput for the individual clients.&amp;nbsp; Otherwise, I'd say to be sure you try to limit the amount of broadcast/multicast, for best results.&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; But if you have mostly stationary clients, and plan your channels appropriately, you can run with all APs on Solo/Standalone code.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:26:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.ruckuswireless.com/t5/Wireless-Questions-and-Best/30x-APs-ZD-vSZ-vs-Standalone-Performance-comp/m-p/31286#M1409</guid>
      <dc:creator>michael_brado</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-23T22:26:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

