Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 2405 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

APX 320 max concurrent user

Riccardo De Lazzari

Hello, 

I'm having a lot of trouble finding this one simple answer.

How many simultaneous users can I have on my AP APX 320 per band? Both theoretically and practically


I've found this recommendation, but it just says that Sophos tests his AP with up to 60 devices connected all at once, but it's quite generic:

https://community.sophos.com/sophoswireless/f/recommended-reads/121021/sophos-wireless-wi-fi-fundamentals#mcetoc_1enq90c2el

On this link, an user says 128 per radio, is there a better source of information?

https://community.sophos.com/sophoswireless/f/recommended-reads/116898/how-many-clients-can-i-connect-to-an-apx

Thank you

Riccardo 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Not sure that you can get a specific answer. It would depend on the band (5Ghz, 2.4Ghz), the age of the user equipment, etc. Slower, older equipment can slow everything down if you allow it on your network and it's a heavy bandwidth user. (But a thermostat, for example, which uses ancient chips and slows everything down might only broadcast once an hour so essentially have no impact.) That's not even addressing speed, latency, and overall performance. So you might technically get 60 laptops on your AP but then have 60 users all complaining that the connection is so slow as to be unusable during peak hours.

    And your environment will affect it: more obstacles means slower speeds, which means fewer potential clients. Which also depends on band. (For example, I run dual 5GHz to get both upper and lower band, so don't have 2.4GHz at all.)

    So my guess is they need to keep it generic because they have no way of knowing your use case. Saying "128 per radio" is probably a theoretical thing in terms of an internal table.

  • 0 in reply to Wayne Folta

    Yes yes, i know that already (and that is what I've reply to the client). I know that the right answer is just: "it depends". But it would be nice to have at least a number to identify the theoretical max, like "128 per radio" but supported by a proper documentation.

    Btw, Thank You a lot for your answer!

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Wayne Folta

    Yes yes, i know that already (and that is what I've reply to the client). I know that the right answer is just: "it depends". But it would be nice to have at least a number to identify the theoretical max, like "128 per radio" but supported by a proper documentation.

    Btw, Thank You a lot for your answer!

Children
  • 0 in reply to Riccardo De Lazzari

    I hear you. On the one hand you can't say, "Just buy four of them to be safe". But if you say "128 per radio and two radios" they will anchor on that and figure you only need one because they only have 60 employees in the building. Personally, I'd slant towards distance, materials, penetration, use-cases, etc, rather than a theoretical maximum that's probably driven by only using 8 bits for a client-id.

    Even in a home installation, it's more driven by distances and materials (and does the household have four people who game and stream at the same time) than by theoretical maxima.

Unfiltered HTML