Meru Networks' E(z)RF SAM Measures Network Performance

 
 
By Andrew Garcia  |  Posted 2010-04-14 Email Print this article Print
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The E(z)RF Service Assurance Module enables wireless LAN administrators to leverage an existing Meru WLAN infrastructure to provide ongoing benchmarking of the wireless network.

Meru Networks' E(z)RF Service Assurance Module provides an easy way for enterprise wireless LAN administrators to benchmark and measure network performance on an ongoing basis. At its heart, the E(z)RF SAM provides a way to leverage an existing Meru WLAN infrastructure to provide ongoing benchmarking of the wireless network.

Instead of requiring laptops or other WLAN clients to perform the benchmark tests, the SAM sequentially turns every Meru AP300 series access point (except the AP301) in the network into a virtual client. It uses these clients to connect to every SSID (Service Set Identifier) configured throughout the network in each radio frequency band supported by the APs, while continuing to service clients at the same time. In this way, administrators can more easily understand the raw capacity and performance of their network on an ongoing basis, while still maintaining wireless service on all APs.

The company advertises the SAM as a critical component of its Wireless Service Assurance program-along with 802.11n speeds and Meru's Air Traffic Control air fairness algorithms-which aims to provide dependable WLAN service (with less than an hour of downtown per year) that can be considered for replacement of the bulk of the wired network.

Meru is not the only wireless LAN vendor talking about service assurance of WLANs.  Aerohive's Performance Boost and AirTime Sentinel technologies allow that company to offer SLA (service-level agreement) guarantees to certain users and groups. However, Meru is the first to figure out a way to constantly measure systemwide performance without a lot of legwork or new equipment needed.

My test network consisted of a single Meru MC3000 wireless LAN controller ($5,400) and three dual-band AP320 802.11n access points ($1,495 each). To add SAM functionality, I needed to add to the network a Meru SA (service appliance), the SA1000 ($6,995), on which to run SAM 2.1 ($21,995 software license for 50 APs, released in March) and the required E(z)RF Network Manager software module ($4,995). So on top of any hardware and support costs for the controller ($5,400) and three APs ($1,495 each), SAM totals out to $33,985 for a network with 50 APs.

Creating Performance Baselines

To start, network administrators need to create two performance baselines with the SAM: the first to measure connectivity (latency in milliseconds plus packet loss in raw numbers) and the second to measure bandwidth performance (in Mbps). With baselines established, the administrator can schedule health checks to run periodically, with hourly, daily, weekly or continuous recurrence schedules available. Administrators can also schedule one-off or on-demand health checks.

One would think that the SAM would compare the results of each health check to the baseline, but that is only the case with one of the tests. A throughput health check measures its performance in relation to the baseline, providing evaluative ratings as defined by percentages defined by the administrator. For instance, I defined the upper threshold at 50 percent  and the lower at 25 percent, meaning any throughput measurement achieving 50 percent or greater of baseline will be rated by the SAM as "good," anything below 25 percent "bad" and the rest "fair."  

On the other hand, the connectivity baselines are informational, but not used as a basis for ongoing comparison with health checks. In this case, the administrator must instead define the upper and lower levels of acceptable latency and packet loss throughout the network.

Determining when to run baseline tests is a bit of a philosophical argument. To measure ongoing performance against best-case scenarios, administrators should time baseline collection for times when wireless traffic and potential interferers are at a minimum. Or network administrators may want ongoing health checks to be compared to normal operating condition baselines, which would be collected during work hours.

Ideally, it would be great if health checks could be measured against both measurements taken under both circumstances, but the SAM doesn't work that way. I could run a bunch of baselines at different times of day and keep them in the system, but only one of each type of baseline is active at any time. Health checks are compared only to the active baseline, and there is no way to automatically switch baselines behind the scenes.  

I also found that the baseline measurement taken determines what specific networks and APs are tested during a health check. An ESSID (Extended SSID) or an AP that was not part of the baseline will not be part of health checks taken while the baseline is active. If I want to omit certain ESSIDs from future tests (for instance, if I don't want to benchmark a guest network), I could clone a baseline within the SAM and edit the resulting baseline to omit certain ESSIDs, access points or radios from future health checks.

When a baseline is initiated, the SAM contacts the Meru wireless controller defined for the test, pulling down the controller's saved configuration file to get a list of all available access points, as well as all the configured ESSIDs and their security settings. Then, the SAM pushes a virtual client to an AP, which in turn associates itself with another AP on the network. If the AP supports both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands, each radio will be tested in turn.

Once associated to the network, the SA appliance sends traffic over the wired network to the virtual client-hosting AP, which transmits the traffic over wireless to the other AP, which then routes the traffic back over the wired network to the SA appliance. For the connectivity tests, the SAM utilizes a 10-second or so burst of ICMP traffic to measure network characteristics, while the throughput test utilizes a built-in iteration of the iPerf test tool to measure upload throughput.



 
 
 
 
Andrew cut his teeth as a systems administrator at the University of California, learning the ins and outs of server migration, Windows desktop management, Unix and Novell administration. After a tour of duty as a team leader for PC Magazine's Labs, Andrew turned to system integration - providing network, server, and desktop consulting services for small businesses throughout the Bay Area. With eWEEK Labs since 2003, Andrew concentrates on wireless networking technologies while moonlighting with Microsoft Windows, mobile devices and management, and unified communications. He produces product reviews, technology analysis and opinion pieces for eWEEK.com, eWEEK magazine, and the Labs' Release Notes blog. Follow Andrew on Twitter at andrewrgarcia, or reach him by email at agarcia@eweek.com.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Submit a Comment

Loading Comments...
 
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rocket Fuel