Concerns Over Increased 802.11n Power Usage 72
alphadogg writes "Next-generation 802.11n systems promise to considerably improve WLAN performance. But the processing required for the boost sucks up more power than the older 802.11a/b/g networks. Still, many enterprise-class Wi-Fi vendors claim to deliver full 802.11n capabilities without enterprise customers having to touch their power infrastructures. So what gives?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Suckin 18 watts, instead of 15,
It's way less than a lightbulb, on a dull day
But the article author thinks there's no way
And isn't it ironic, don't you think?
No, sorry, can't see the irony there. And ffs for the 3 extra watts per base station/machine, it amounts to switching on a couple of extra lights at the company. I know it's still better to save power where you can, but needing a new power infrastructure to support it? You have to lol. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
W-Lan base stations tend to not have processo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't count the infrastructure.
Also, I dunno about you, but my several-years-old Powerbook has a 65 watt power adaptor. Where do you get off saying 15 watts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*plonk*
Eh? (Score:1)
It's not ironic [alanis.com]! It's creepy [upenn.edu]. (God, kids these days.)
What about the remote clients? (Score:2)
Re:What about the remote clients? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe skimming TFA wasn't the best basis for comment. The article mentions no power issue at the client. It's basically saying that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, no it can't. 18W - 100mW is 17.9W. Even if you cut the transmit power to zero, you're still not going to be able to cut 6W. That's like trying to empty a bathtub with a single bucket without making multiple trips....
Re: (Score:2)
Freeze the tub, balance the ice block precariously on the bucket, imply a threat to let it land on pedantic person trotting out something as archaic as math get in the way of your argument.
It's really not so much what you say as how you say it.
Body language, man: body language.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What else do I have to do, solve your non-grasp of humor?
Re: (Score:2)
Check again, it's probably more like 12 W. Or post the model number of this dual band wonder.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What Gives? Simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What Gives? Simple. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually they don't - take a look in a high-end AP some time. "Enterprise" wireless systems use the same, or often older generation, of wireless technology that is in consumer access points. Competition in the consumer AP market is what drives all the incredible price/performance in wireless technology, and I assure you nobody is going to spend the tens of millions to do a custom spin of one of those chipsets for the relatively small high-end market. Those products sell on branding, special software features, and support contracts, not silicon performance. And as far as the CPU/memory etc, these are going to be much LESS specialized in a high-end system than in a consumer AP. Low-cost APs use highly integrated ARM or MIPs-based SOCs that are designed for sub $20 BOM cost. A higher-end system, however, is not bound by BOM costs and might have four times the memory and a more general purpose processor capable of running more software.
Routers and switches are a different story, and those DO use ASICs and FPGAs. The high-end models of these have to deliver a totally different hardware feature set than consumer equipment, and unlike wireless technology, the bleeding edge tends to be developed for the highest priced products before trickling down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You're saying I'm wrong but admitting that your information is ten years out of date. A LOT has happened since then. The whole industry has consolidated and everything is now driven by the consumer AP market. Encryption is now done in hardware even in the cheapest g/n chipsets. These is NO reason to do custom silicon to support any of the features offered
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In Before... (Score:1, Funny)
Not a significant usage of power (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how a silly article like this gets published. If it was tons of power, how could they make 802.11n adapters for laptops?
Re:Not a significant usage of power (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA: "some 802.11n Draft 2.0-based access points consume up to 18 watts."
From TFA: "802.3af power-over-Ethernet (PoE) switches and power injectors supply about 15 watts of power at the switch port."
No go sit in the corner and think about what you've done...
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, a device that needs 18 watts at peak and an average of about 6 can easily be made to work when only 12 watts are available continuously.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Tons of Power?? (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of points:
1) Laptop clients are single-radios, not the two radios that the dual-band access points have.
2) All the other components that the access point needs to have is already powered by the laptop, e.g. cpu, memory, ethernet switch. The client, being just one radio, can draw less than 2 W during continuous 11n transmit.
Bonus point: The client can also sleep the radio when not in use. The AP has to stay awake and beaconing
Re: (Score:1)
enterprise infrastructure vs laptops (Score:2)
My first thought was not for the infrastructure (the Access Points in a hundred conference rooms and spaced over all the cubicle farms). It was for the laptops. Not having one of the newest sexy 11n devices in my laptop, I wondered if MacOSX or Windows managed to drop the speed for battery operation vs tethered DC power operation.
But the article IS about the corporate fixed infrastructure, right? Are we talking 5% increase of power for something that is already only 1% of the facility power costs? Wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And you'd be incorrect. Most corporate infrastructures that heavily/professionally deploy wireless is going to due it via PoE - putting in a PoE switch or injector is much cheaper than wiring dozens or hundreds of new power jacks up in ceilings and such. With PoE all you need to do is run a ethernet cable over to the AP to provide b
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch, that's embarrassing. Maybe you should've prefaced your comments with, "I'm only guessing here, but..."
Still two radios for simultaneous 11n in 2.4 GHz and 5 Ghz. Noise floor is likewise not the problem you think it is. Instead, we have channel bonding, which means that you're transmitting across a broader spectrum, and multiple transmit chains (MIMO) means that your transmits are less efficient, even at the same power level as non-11n.
BTW, I
Re: (Score:2)
CURRENT enterprise level APs have dual radios in them. They're capable of running 802.11a & g networks simultaneously at full speed.
Hmmm... Research shows that while 802.11n pretty much specifies multiple antennas, it doesn't state multiple radios. From my earlier readings this wasn't made clear.
Instead, we have channel bonding, which means that you're transmitting across a broader spectrum, and multiple transmit chains (MIMO) means that your
Re: (Score:2)
Summary is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong assumptions (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just 5 watts difference. You could probably achieve this by switching to higher efficiency components. Or you could store some energy for the short bursts of transmission, getting a steady power of 13 watts.
Keep in mind that most vendors probably still have the very first itteration of hardware. It will significantly improve over the next years anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't corporate APs, already restricted to PoE, already be using low power devices? I don't think that they wouldn't keep power usage down if they could for the PoE if it was a trivial process.
Still, I agree that power demands will probably come down with time.
802.11n has MIMO = more power used, Duh! (Score:3, Informative)
If the big deal in the article is over PoE powered 802.11n solutions, just exceed the power spec at the power injector and use 24 Gauge CAT6 UTP (or larger Gauge CAT6 for longer runs) for your PoE runs to lower electrical resistance.
I have installed PoE devices that have their own proprietary power injectors that exceed the PoE power standard. The problem is where people use long runs of super cheap CAT5 and lots of punch-downs and they expect also their large switch with PoE injection to provide PoE to whatever is connected. There is a reason that the manufacturers' of powered by PoE devices do provide their own wall-wart PoE injectors...
Nothing gives, nothing has to (Score:2)
Unless you're running at near maximum electrical load, a few extra watts is not going to set transformers afire and melt power lines. If you were in Cuba, with its infamously collapsing electrical grid, I could see this happening, but there are no enterprises in Cuba to begin with, so it's not a relevant scenario.
It also might he
Duty cycle is key (Score:2, Insightful)
Best case is that the supply can deliver short term bursts of power sufficient to meet the demand. This is realistic in most scenarios today, as supplies are typically rated by long-term average power. For example, the 20amp breaker on your typical home circuit will easily supply a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
sdb
Re: (Score:1)
Zed-PM is optional (Score:1)
Cisco Aironet 1250 (Score:1)
The Power issue is a small one for .11n (Score:2, Insightful)
Cisco Premium PoE (Score:2)
802.11n POE (Score:1)