We are currently talking to vendors of wireless solutions for a wireless deployment in a university campus with some 5000 students.
One vendor is offering us a Cisco solution with a WLC 5508 controller and 69 2×2 MIMO Dual-band/Dual radio APs (Aironet AP 1042 model)
The other vendor is offering us an Aruba solution with a 3600 controller and 96 2×2 MIMO dual band BUT single radio APs (Aruba AP93)
Both vendors are charging 82.000 US$ (support, 3y service contracts, switches and additional required options all included of course)
The Aruba vendor is trying to convince me that 96 single radio APs will give us more connection/users/capacity then the 69 dual radio APs.
I have my doubts about that and since it is my core competence-domain I wanted to ask here the opinion of people that have a more profound knowledge and experience in this area.
When you talk to vendors it's often hard to get objective information. So try to answer only if you are sure and please mention it if you are affiliated with one of the vendors.
I appreciate all useful help and want to thank you in advance for the effort!
Best Answer
The Right Answer(tm) is that It Depends(tm).
Generally, dual radio APs have higher client capacities than single radio APs, but roughly the same coverage area. Conversely, however, single radio APs can be distributed in a wider area, allowing each AP to use a lower transmit power and spread the client load across multiple APs. It's a tradeoff. More clients in a tigher space generally means that you need more radios.
If you're going to have areas of high client concentration you will typically need fewer dual-radio APs in those areas than you'd need single-radio APs.
Whether your clients are 802.11b/g/a/n makes a different, too, because a network with predominantly 5.4Ghz clients will be able to pack more densely with fewer APs simply because there are more non-overlapping channels and the APs don't have to function as "spotlights".