Our experience is that at 40% users are going to start to wonder what's wrong, and at 60% you might as well hang it up. I'm not sure where the 34% number came from, but it matches with the maximum practical utilization of the Aloha network in the late 60's.
Perhaps it is entirely a coincidence that Aloha and 802.11* show similar maximum utilization? I'd love to see graphs of throughput vs. utilization for various protocols, but can't lay my hands on any at the moment. John On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Reams, Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Our team has recently been having discussions about co-channel > interference and channel utilization to better understand the issues we are > having in our dorms. We know we have a design issue, but we are trying to > quantify the problem. In Cisco’s “Enterprise Best Practices for Apple > Mobile Devices on Cisco Wireless LANs”, they state that “Using the Aloha > protocol definition of channel utilization, a wireless packet network > reached capacity when the utilization reaches 34%.” > > > > What utilization parameters do you use to identify poor performance on a > channel? In other words, at what percentage do you say “that’s a problem”? > > > > *Lane Reams | Manager, Network Design & Engineering | Information > Technology | Vanderbilt University* > [email protected] | phone 615.936.2677 | it.vanderbilt.edu > > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > -- -------- -------===============########===============--------------- Want to quickly check a system status or report a problem to the IT team? Use http://justme.westmont.edu Have a problem that requires tracking and IT email response? Use http://mayday.westmont.edu ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
