Vague Question:
If one access point can do the job adequately is there still an advantage to using more than one?
Scenario:
1 access point at the center of your network required coverage area should adequately cover the area. There will always be less than 50 wireless clients and 0 wired clients. Most of the clients will move throughout the required coverage area while in use and some would like to go just beyond the perimeter; but don't have to. A gigabit backbone is available for access points to be placed anywhere. There are neighboring wifi networks, but only horizontally.
Specific Question:
In this scenario is there an advantage to using multiple (say 2 ~ 4) access points and placing them near the perimeter of your required coverage area?
My 2 Hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: With 1 access point at the center of the required coverage area broadcasting on dual bands with 1 channel each it will be easier to find clear channels. Clients will not have to migrate from access point to access point as they move throughout the covered area; possibly dropping the connection momentarily, or just failing to migrate at all. By maintaing a smaller perimeter there is less chance of interference from other neighboring wifi networks and equipment operating in the same band.
Hypothesis 2: With multiple access points near the perimeter of the coverage area more channels should be used; 1 channel for each access point (or should 1 be used for all since it is the same network?) possibly limiting it to 3 non-overlapping channels and 3 access points. Clients may migrate well from access point to access point while moving. They can leave the required perimeter somewhat. Everyone has a stronger signal, a lower chance of dropped packets, etc. Interference may be a bigger problem, especially with neighboring wifi networks.
NOTES: They will all have the same SSID and WPA2 Passphrase, SSID will be hidden and MAC filtering will be used, 802.11n or 802.11ac will be used. I have a clear understanding of networking and I'm not asking how to do this. I'm asking which is better based on scientific evidence. I don't have the budget to a-b test this.
Maybe this is really a question of how well will the clients migrate on their own, or maybe it it's more than that.
Best Answer
In the scenario you describe, you should definitely be looking at multiple access points, preferrably dual band APs.
While coverage may be sufficient, coverage alone is no longer the primary consideration when deploying a wirelss network. Client capacity, channel utilization, signal quality, and reliability are much more important and multiple access points will help with all of these.
By using 3 (or more) APs on multiple channels (1, 6, and 11), you will in effect triple the amount of airtime (bandwidth) available on your wireless network.
Additionally, proper placement of the APs will provide clients a closer AP with stronger signal, which will be more resistant to noise in the RF environment. This will allow better signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios which will translate to the use of higher data rates and this results in more data transmitted per "timeslot".
I would recommend placing them 2/3 to 3/4 of the way from the center to the perimeter, spaced roughly evenly. Try to get them in or as close to the highest user denisity locations as possible (i.e. conference rooms, etc).
Finally, the additional access points will provide increased reliability. With a single access point, if it were to fail or reboot for any reason, this would create a disruption in service. Having multiple access points should allow for coverage to overlap, allowing service to remain (if degraded) when you have an access point down.